Child Silencer Device... Is it Ethical?

[Lost heros]

Please tell me you're kidding.

You don't actually think that just because you can't hear or see a problem it doesn't exist.

Maybe you should read the context behind the argument

(it's deaf parents)

I apologize. I assumed you were just talking about silencing children in general

[Ripoll]

It's not a shock collar, there is no negative reinforcement, as for my personal opinion I would only be for this if it was specifically designed for children under 4.

Read the post. I was talking about corporal punishment.

Regardless, just because a child is young doesn't mean you can't negatively affect development by silencing the child.

Seeing how this is all hypothetical and scientific study can't be done, I'm pretty sure we're only arguing the moral aspects not potential scientifically related side effects over a device we've never seen or measured before. Regardless it isn't negative reinforcement in the way that we've actually seen happen.

[Laerod]

You need to source why it wouldn't be abuse. Because almost every modern society actually has ruled that social confinement is actually torture.

How about it not being social confinement? Also they said it only really works for screaming or any other high pitch overly emotional response, not indefinite mutage.

And in my personal opinion on how I view this it would only be applicable to children 4 and under.

IM also views the world through the lens of their favorite TV show.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You need to source why it wouldn't be abuse. Because almost every modern society actually has ruled that social confinement is actually torture.

How about it not being social confinement? Also they said it only really works for screaming or any other high pitch overly emotional response, not indefinite mutage.

And in my personal opinion on how I view this it would only be applicable to children 4 and under.

Because, again, the collar would stop children from being able to cry *past* the parents. Deaf parents could mute signs of abuse easily with such a device. It's social confinement in definition, you're limiting their socialization to the electronic device.

[Ripoll]

How about it not being social confinement? Also they said it only really works for screaming or any other high pitch overly emotional response, not indefinite mutage.

And in my personal opinion on how I view this it would only be applicable to children 4 and under.

Because, again, the collar would stop children from being able to cry *past* the parents. Deaf parents could mute signs of abuse easily with such a device. It's social confinement in definition, you're limiting their socialization to the electronic device.

Crying is one of many forms of social interaction, and there are many areas in society were you cannot just cry, are court hearings torture as well because they're are limiting your social interaction?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because, again, the collar would stop children from being able to cry *past* the parents. Deaf parents could mute signs of abuse easily with such a device. It's social confinement in definition, you're limiting their socialization to the electronic device.

Crying is one of many forms of social interaction, and there are many areas in society were you cannot just cry, are court hearings torture as well because they're are limiting your social interaction?

The court is a place of a completely different power structure. Courts have rules, written into law, observed and balanced by society.

People's homes do not have that kind of oversight to prevent abuse.

[Laerod]

Crying is one of many forms of social interaction, and there are many areas in society were you cannot just cry, are court hearings torture as well because they're are limiting your social interaction?

The court is a place of a completely different power structure. Courts have rules, written into law, observed and balanced by society.

People's homes do not have that kind of oversight to prevent abuse.

Not to mention don't courts have somewhat different rules when it comes to hearing testimonies of minors? They do over here, as far as I can tell.

[Ripoll]

Crying is one of many forms of social interaction, and there are many areas in society were you cannot just cry, are court hearings torture as well because they're are limiting your social interaction?

The court is a place of a completely different power structure. Courts have rules, written into law, observed and balanced by society.

People's homes do not have that kind of oversight to prevent abuse.

With or without mute collars no?

[The Emerald Dawn]

The court is a place of a completely different power structure. Courts have rules, written into law, observed and balanced by society.

People's homes do not have that kind of oversight to prevent abuse.

Not to mention don't courts have somewhat different rules when it comes to hearing testimonies of minors? They do over here, as far as I can tell.

They do indeed.

---

The court is a place of a completely different power structure. Courts have rules, written into law, observed and balanced by society.

People's homes do not have that kind of oversight to prevent abuse.

With or without mute collars no?

So adding mute collars is a good idea to an already balanced-against-the-minor situation?

No, no it is not.

[The Mizarian Empire]

I would say your heart is in an interesting place but with the wrong approach. I get wanting to shut the more ill-behaving little brats up (tantrums in public, causing a scene and humiliating the parents over something as simple as you won't get them the sweets they want). The problem is how its being approached here, COMPLETELY removing that ability to complain could have detrimental effects. Now granted if what the OP is saying is true and the parents are paying attention they'll see a message their child wants something and react....but we're forgetting 2 VERY important factors here:

1) I've seen more than one instance where parents/guardians forget their phone/electronic device. Whether they leave the house in a spur of the moment, the phone was on the charge and they forgot it wasn't in their pocket like normal...could be any number of reasons. In these cases they aren't going to see the child is trying to get your attention, save them directly coming up and kicking you in the shin or yanking on your arm/clothes etc...Promoting equally irritable behavior.

2) Children's cries are irritating for a reason, scientific studies have shown that the normal range in which a child's cry or scream falls is biologically designed to annoy the piss out of you. The reason being obviously to give parents more reason to respond to the reason their child is upset. Take that away and a negligent parent has even LESS reason to respond. We've already seen plenty enough cases of what negligence can do to a developing child (emotional/psychological complexes immediately leap to mind). Imagine what happens when their shrieks/cries/pleas are reduced to "another" text message. Think the kids get ignored enough as is? Imagine what happens when that comes up.

[Salandriagado]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with such a device. In fact, I'd make it mandatory. Although I'd change it so that instead of getting a text message the parent has to have headphones which transmit the horrible screeching of their offspring directly to them in stereo.

Imagine if you were really angry, or was just hurt, and you scream on the top of the lungs, yet you are the only one who hears it, and your parents weren't there. That isn't very helpful. Lets say that the child is playing, and he falls and breaks his legs, and his parents are away, and his collar is still there. It'll take a long time before people can find that child. This is ultimately detrimental to both the child and the parents.

Why did the parents abandon their child without supervision?

Because you can't (and certainly shouldn't) keep them under constant supervision beyond the first few years.

The parents deserve what they are getting. It was their choice to breed so they should have to live with the consequences. But the rest of us should not be required to suffer because someone else selfishly decided his genes were so important for the future of the human race that he absolutely needs to produce offspring.

Now you're acting as if parenthood is supposed to be a punishment or is always undesirable, it's not. If that is not your cup of tea, fine; but someone has to in countries with demographic problems such as those in Europe or Japan if these peoples aren't to eventually go extinct.

Half of world population now reproducing at below replacement levels. Expected peak will be 8 to 10 billion.

That's not a problem. We need to peak, and soon, or we're thoroughly fucked.

No it doesn't. Shutting your kids up is not a sign of good parenting.

the volume is down, but the substance of the communication is the same (just minus the irritation ti the household and neighbours)

So instead, install exactly the same device (minus the texting) in a perimeter around your house (and maybe around any other children/etc. also sleeping in the house, with suitable duplication of fire alarms etc.). You can still hear it, but it doesn't bother the neighbours.

All the more reason not to put tools in their hands.

the screams of a kid being abused can't be distinguished with much reliability from the screams of a child in tantrum anyhow

no real loss

Yes they can. Absolutely, 100%.

Disorders take years to develop. To have a meaningful study, you'd have to subject children to years of potential abuse.

Why not skip it, and just learn to parent?

Because we dont have parenting licence which requires parents to be educated on how to interpret toddler's concerns and pacify them.

So start running more (and free, and available at sensible times when people aren't busy) classes on the subject. Don't blank out one of the sources on information, for those who actually need it.

Research into what?

Average timing where child stops crying given adequate responses by the guardian.

The range is vast. Like, wide enough that "child is being seriously neglected" can be a notably shorter period than "child is being cared for properly".

Whether jurisdictions allow abuse does not change that it is abuse.

Abuse or not, I find it a more plausible method of correcting behavior.

HINT: There's a reason we banned that shit for adults. To put it simply: it doesn't work. And if it doesn't work for adults, who are more capable of understanding precisely why it's being done to them, and how it relates to what they did, what the hell makes you think it will work for children?

It's not. It's equally reprehensible.

I just think parents should raise their children how they see fit, so long as they don't kill them/use them for sex acts/source of money/etc.

If doing it to a spouse would be abuse, then doing it to a child is certainly abuse. (NB: The converse does not hold: there are things that are not abuse when applied to your spouse that are abusive when applied to your child).

Much like prison doesn't correct the behaviour of many people who pass through its doors, child abuse doesn't correct the behaviour of many children who suffer it.

I could say it corrected me, in a way. But since I don't represent every child, it's up for debate. But letting kids get off scot-free with misbehavior just doesn't seem to make sense, in my warped and wicked sense of the world.

There are many far more effective and far less abusive (by which I mean: not abusive) methods.

Kids today are foul-mouthed, undisciplined, and spoiled. Kids fifty years ago were respectful to their elders and knew how to keep their mouths shut.

This is bollocks. Kids 50 years ago were, if anything, a whole lot worse than they are now. A lot of them spent most of their time abusing other children (which, of course, terrible parents happily ignored), whilst the others did a whole lot of other things that you'd probably consider totally unacceptable - this was the swinging 60s, after all.

The job of a parent is not to coddle the child. The job of a parent is to prepare the child for adult life.

In my entire adult life (minus martial arts training and events), I've been hit by another adult exactly once. The person that did the punching was then arrested. Precisely what part of this is hitting children preparing them for?

One of the most important lessons that a child needs to learn is personal responsibility, and spoiling a child teaches them nothing.

Nor does hitting them (well, except that violence is the answer to your problems, which really isn't a lesson that we want them to be learning, being as it doesn't set you up for any part of adult life that doesn't involve the prison system). This is not a dichotomy.

And anytime you have to resort to violence to discipline a child is a failure at parenting.

So it's pretty much agreed on that there is no "correct way" to discipline a child, no?

No, there's plenty of correct ways. None of them involve violence (unless you count things like knocking fingers that are about to enter an electrical socket and the like violence, which they really aren't), and they aren't the same for every child.

Your side is the only one arguing that non-violent means of discipline don't work. Without any sort of evidence, I might add.

I'm obviously not saying that my method would always work. I just find it more fitting for my needs. Whether it makes/breaks most of the child's future self is none of my concern, just so long as they learn to behave when needed.

Never raise children. Seriously, never. The child's future self is the whole damn point of raising children.

I feel kids learn better from harsher punishment, but again that's my opinion. Unfortunately, I'll never have the chance to test it out.

You are factually and scientifically incorrect.

It often isn't the main factor, but it hardly helps turn people into well-adjusted human beings.

Nothing will help anyone become well-adjusted. There will always be flaws.

Well adjusted =/= flawless.

Starvation.
Sanitation.
Injuries which require attention.
Choking.
Dehydration.
Requiring reassurance, love, and affection.

These are all not things.

Usually children scream because they are children.
Rarely, children scream because they DO they need help.

Absolute bollocks. I'm going to take a guess that you haven't spent any significant amount of time around children of that age since you were that age yourself. Am I wrong?

Because it's tantamount to willful neglect, which is child abuse.

A kid screaming and someone not addressing that immediately is child abuse too no? Who is to say this will automatically lead to neglect?

It already is neglect. Young children screaming = "I have a need but lack the physical ability to express it with words or solve the problem myself, come help". Not going to help is neglect, period.

Let's play a thought experiment.

In this thought experiment, you realize that I was stating the list of ways your children's cries inform you that they need various things from you.

I'll perform my part of the thought experiment by forgetting that you somehow missed this very obvious fact.

Show deaf couples not be able to raise children? Same premise right?

There's a message, it's a pop up hell it might even include an alarm, it just won't be the child screaming when you're at work but had to take him/her.

Deaf couples that aren't awful parents (for reference, I have a deaf parent) are very careful about such things, and essentially ensure that at least one of them can always see the child, so that they can see the screaming, and/or by using baby monitors with visual indicators when sound is emitted.

Deaf couples who raise children still have a language they use. Strangely Sign Language has been around for longer than computing technology.

I'm sure a message you can feel vibrate is more noticeable than sign language, considering you have to grab the attention of your parent physically and if you're under 4 you can't really do that. In fact 4 year olds really don't know sign language.

Babies learn a form of sign language before they learn to speak. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to teach them into a standard system, much the same as turning "baby-speak" into a language that others can understand. For reference, at the age of four, I spoke sign language with a similar proficiency to English, so I'm told. Children, in general, are able to understand language a lot earlier than they are physically able to express it (hence "baby-speak", and a whole lot of tantrums relating to the inability to express themselves - something else that this suggestion would make vastly worse). Removing their ability to experiment is not going to help things in any way.

Since in the adult world, we don't allow adults to strike other adults, beating your children seems like a wholly inappropriate way to "prepare them for adult life".

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules. For adults, it's prison. For children, it's a belt.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

There's a reason that we use prisons rather than corporal punishment: corporal punishment does not work.

[Alcase]

-snip-

Jesus Christ use some spoliers or something...

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

To those thinking this is the same as the dog training collars:

Try one on. Seriously. Put one of those on and see how 'non-harmful' it is. And you want to put that on a child? Jebus H Hyskos, folks. Please, do everyone a favor, and do not have kids. Ever.

As for the 'they won't remember it'. People aren't supposed to remember things under Rohypnol and the like either. Does that make doing something to them while they're under the influence of it ok? I dunno about you folks, but I have memories going quite a ways back to when I was but a toddler, and have verified it with my parents. Lets not take the risk. And lets not be so irresponsible as to suggest that having them not remember something done to them, possibly, is a great reason to do as you like for your own convenience. This does nothing for the child. It's a selfish desire to not be hassled, putting someone else's well-being at potential risk. The comments are simply getting more and more disgusting in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

Studies on kids, and 'if it causes harm, nevermind' - so just how many kids are you proposing to damage before you're convinced this is a bad idea? How many is an acceptable loss? If you were one of those kids, how would you feel about it later in life, knowing your well being and future wasn't worth shit to someone else who simply wanted a way to 'keep you quiet and out of the way' for simple convenience? You wouldn't mind? It's fine? All in the greater good? How many edgy responses of internet tough guy 'nothing can touch me I am immovable' crap are we gonna get from this, hm?

I swear, y'all want peace and quiet that much, go somewhere quiet, away from everyone, and put your gorram noise-cancelling headphones on, and leave everyone else out of it. Especially the kids, some of which, given their ages, have no other way to communicate other than to make noise or cry.

[The Orson Empire]

Your side is the only one arguing that non-violent means of discipline don't work. Without any sort of evidence, I might add.

I'm obviously not saying that my method would always work. I just find it more fitting for my needs. Whether it makes/breaks most of the child's future self is none of my concern, just so long as they learn to behave when needed.

Please, don't ever have kids.

[MERIZoC]

I'm obviously not saying that my method would always work. I just find it more fitting for my needs. Whether it makes/breaks most of the child's future self is none of my concern, just so long as they learn to behave when needed.

Please, don't ever have kids.

^^
No kidding.

[Equestria and Griffon]

If,someone brought this,I would shoot putin in the head FOREVEH!
(Also,the leader/creator of this forum)
One word:Suffocation.
Remove suffocation and it will be BIG.

[Equestria and Griffon]

Infact,I have MANY more reasons this would be a problem,as someone stated on Page one,Toddlers scream that way for a REASON.
Fuck whoever invents this.

[Page]

Why invent one of these? Give your kid some candy and TV to watch and they won't bother you.

[Equestria and Griffon]

Page is right.

[Earth Empire]

Saw the author of this thread, laughed, and went back to what I was doing...

[Saiwania]

That's not a problem. We need to peak, and soon, or we're thoroughly fucked.

I'm saying that the other half is going to fall into going towards sub replacement fertility as well by around 2040. There will at best only be a quarter of humanity that will remain which will still be reproducing at a sustainable rate or higher. They will mainly be from either African or Southeast Asian nations, with all other regions of the globe facing steep declines if the projections based on current trends continue as expected.

Humans aren't the most stable of animal species, there is no innate desire for a stable 2.1 children per woman. Generally speaking, people tend to have either too many children or too few.

[Page]

Saw the author of this thread, laughed, and went back to what I was doing...

Oh my God, didn't even notice!

*Ahem*

Infected Mushroom wants a puppy genocide, therefore their opinion is invalid.

[Jamjai]

first thing came to my mind was torture

it looks like a torture device

its like putting a mask on and ripping your flesh apart

[Nord Amour]

Your children are not your property. They have just as much a right to speak as anyone else. Of course if they're causing a disruption to others, you may need to reevaluate some portions of your own parenting.

[Khorsun]

Consistent screaming is a learned behavior, done to get a desirable response from a caregiver. This is one of the reasons a parent should ignore a tantrum, because the child then associates a tantrum with being ignored, which discourages that behavior.

Using such a device is both unnecessary, and harmful, as children should have the ability to talk and interact with caregivers, as this helps in their development. If a parent is so over whelmed by screaming, that they're reduced to using a muzzle, I think it might be time have some parenting support.

have you ever lived under a roof with one of those screaming devils?

Irritated parents won't make good parents.

Your thread is irritating to parents.