Child Silencer Device... Is it Ethical?

[Torisakia]

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.

I don't plan to. If I ever did, I can assure you DHR would get involved very quickly.

[Ripoll]

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.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that this is a purely hypothetical, but fun and interesting moral dilemma.

1) hypothetically in this case, as the OP said, it would be entirely safe physically for the child. We don't even know the material it would be made out off, or how tight it would be! Maybe it would be a cotton half brace that only attaches to the back of the neck and so on.

2) it isn't physically damaging like narctoics so no, it isn't a fair comparison. It is very unlikely there is any emotional damage done at all considering how young the child is and the fact that his thoughts are very limited.

3) this isn't for parents that just hate their kids, there is a very practical purpose for such a device. Going to the bank, going to a meeting, driving to work, having dinner at a restaurant, or anything else where your child could cause a very big scene.

4) You would still be able to understand what's going on with your child, as your device would tell you. It would simply cause less of a scene and allow you to act in a more calm and sensible matter.

Personally speaking I think it should be illegal up to the point when your child begins to develop speech and the ability to think on his/her own. At that point everyone has a right to have their voice heard, and no one, not even their parents, has the right to silence them.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think it's fair to acknowledge that this is a purely hypothetical, but fun and interesting moral dilemma.

1) hypothetically in this case, as the OP said, it would be entirely safe physically for the child. We don't even know the material it would be made out off, or how tight it would be! Maybe it would be a cotton half brace that only attaches to the back of the neck and so on.

And how willing would you be to wear one of these yourself, to say, block out the noise of others rather than enforce silence on children who are a) too young to understand, b) unable to tell you if there is discomfort - other than crying, which you could no longer hear, or at least, not judge the tone of (which is key for parents, btw, as I've previously stated) or c) in more likelihood of getting caught or snagged or otherwise hung up on said device given how wiggly and fussy about crap strapped onto them as kids are?

2) it isn't physically damaging like narctoics so no, it isn't a fair comparison. It is very unlikely there is any emotional damage done at all considering how young the child is and the fact that his thoughts are very limited.

Unlikely, in your opinion. But you can't know, you can't prove it. The comparison there was for those who were directly stating 'testing on children and if it messes them up, we'll know it doesn't work'. So, in reference to hypothetical tests, not sure how they could do it legitimately while getting actual measurements on development, stress on child, etc, without potentially messing some kids up - and you wouldn't know some of the long-term effects for years, until they had grown up, and you could see the results.

3) this isn't for parents that just hate their kids, there is a very practical purpose for such a device. Going to the bank, going to a meeting, driving to work, having dinner at a restaurant, or anything else where your child could cause a very big scene.

If you have children who can't behave, you shouldn't take them to places you know they'll cause a 'very big scene'. I've had to go without before when I had fussy kids. You make do. You make accommodations. You get someone to help watch them so you can do what you need to do. You be responsible. You don't just 'find a way to turn off the noise so you can go about your merry way'. It's irresponsible - and that doesn't have to be hypothesized. The very basis is selfish and not in the best interest of the child.

4) You would still be able to understand what's going on with your child, as your device would tell you. It would simply cause less of a scene and allow you to act in a more calm and sensible matter.

I would like to know how exactly some 'device' would be able to read child's mind to let one know exactly what was wrong. There's a tonality you learn to pick up on with your kid - it's through bonding and experience. Same as how as a parent, I could tell what my child was saying in their little kidspeak that made no sense to other people, even family, but I knew exactly what they were saying, and was able to get them what they were asking for. This is all built up in levels. It takes an ongoing learning curve with both child attempting to communicate needs, and parent learning to interpret and see to those needs. Child is cared for, child learns how to request in increasingly less noisy and more communicative ways. It doesn't just happen out of the blue. You teach them as they grow. How do you do that if you have them turned off, and you're tuned out? As for acting in a calm and sensible manner - that's something a parent ought to be responsible for anyway. And if you cannot, you need to step away and let someone else step in who can. End of. Again, the onus is on the adult, not the child. And one shouldn't make the child responsible by slapping some rig on them to ensure better behavior from their parent.

Personally speaking I think it should be illegal up to the point when your child begins to develop speech and the ability to think on his/her own. At that point everyone has a right to have their voice heard, and no one, not even their parents, has the right to silence them.

It ought to be illegal period. There has been no method or explanation given here that convinces me otherwise - hypothetical or no.

[Warpspace]

This is literally the direct opposite of freedom of speech. You're denying a sentient being the very right to even speak.

Not to mention that crying is the one way that young children can express distress, especially about danger. If you installed said hypothetical silencer, and kid accidentally hanged itself or drowned in a creek near the house, you'd never know until you found the body, as all of their screams would be completely silent.

[Benuty]

Ethical in the world of the mad Australian wasteland roamed by Max (no relation to Max Barry) perhaps.

I mean they were all into slavery, and prostitution (the forced kind) after all.

[The New Sea Territory]

imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child.

Rejected at face value. Simply put, no.

[Drubenia]

Hell, I wish every child in my city EVER would have one. Don't really give a shit about ethics... how 'bout we hand them out for free?

[The New Sea Territory]

Hell, I wish every child in my city EVER would have one. Don't really give a shit about ethics... how 'bout we hand them out for free?

....what about this novel notion of freedom?

[Giovenith]

No. Obnoxious or not, crying and screaming is an important step in young children learning how to communicate both verbally and socially. Kids freak out for a reason, not to personally annoy you, believe it or not. It allows them to test out sounds, phrases, and learn about response from observance. The only time children screaming is really a big problem is when they're old enough to have more advanced communication, and even then, the psychological effects of a child being constantly deprived of their voice would be massive. By doing this, you're not only avoiding your responsibilities to teach them through proper social conditioning, you're dealing a massive blow to their development of a sense of autonomy and individual responsibility.

This idea is selfish, in every sense of the word. Children are people with their own needs separate from that of adults, not dogs you can just berate and constraint into a state of being that personally pleases you. When you have a kid, you don't get to put your own peace of mind before their needs and welfare. Parenting is stressful, really fucking stressful, but that's the lot you chose when you took up the job. If you can't handle kids doing what kids are supposed to do, the solution is to NOT have kids, not try to abusively mold things to your liking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

Parents MUST wear the message ring. If the child is more than 20 meters from message ring, then Silencer switches off. Child loses parents, them screaming is justified, so Silencer switches off.

Feel free to go back and reference where I, as a parent who has raised 2 far past the screaming children years, has to offer on your less-than-informed opinion, thanks. The irony here being we have relative children commenting on how children who are not them ought to be raised.

It both amuses and horrifies me.

I second this.

Whenever I come to these threads I feel a sort of dread about how children in the homes of NSGers are going to be raised.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

Why is it that I can always count on you on coming up with fucked up solutions that sounds straight out of a techno-BDSM novel?

Anyways, no, fuck no, hell no, and niet. This is a bullshit invention for so many reasons, even if hypothetical.

[Edgy Opinions]

I agree with the people saying it's unethical, but somehow it doesn't strike me as too undeserved.

What is the name for anti-baby/anti-toddler bigotry?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's really only in the last fifty years or so that it became unacceptable to strike a child.
Before that, it was not only acceptable, it was expected.

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." -Proverbs 13:24 (NIV)

As much as I hate bringing religion into this discussion, that particular quote seems quite appropriate.
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.

The job of a parent is not to coddle the child. The job of a parent is to prepare the child for adult life.
One of the most important lessons that a child needs to learn is personal responsibility, and spoiling a child teaches them nothing.

My dad never hit me for just about everything, in fact he spanked me, spanked me, three times.

Guess how old he is?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Time and place, but never with an intent to hurt or harm. A swift smack on the padded backside with a cupped hand meant to draw immediate attention and sound without the 'aw shit ow' effect in the least, when used in very rare occasion, can have an outstanding effect.

And I'm arguing that not even that is truly ok and that it is still abuse. It teaches the child that violence is a means to obtain obedience and more often than not instills a desire to see "wrongdoing" punished. If there's one thing my parents spanking me taught me, it was to stab my sister with a safety pin when I thought she was misbehaving. I've managed to outgrow that but it is very clear many on these very forums and in our societies have not. Studies show that violence perpetuates itself and that it drastically increases the risk of anxiety or anger issues later on in life. No one's arguing against disciplining children (as you've noted), but some of us are most definitely arguing that it needs to be done without violence and without bullying.

There's always a time and place.

My dad, for instance, used to threaten a swat on the bum after he repeatedly tried to tell us calmly not to do it and the reasons why and he also punished up. He never did it, but he had to once he had told us many times just so we learned that he meant what he said (which is why I got three times the good old swat on the bum).

That doesn't make my parent an abusive parent, really. The whole point of it wasn't to abuse or to exert power, but since he did warn us that he was going to spank us he thought if he didn't we'd disrespect him and trample over his authority if he didn't follow through with what he said he would do. We still had a lot of leeway to express our opinions, but he made sure to draw the line on tone.

[Imperializt Russia]

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

These are all not things.

Please, are dog collars animal cruelty? It doesn't even have to be a collar, it could be a watch or something

Dogs are property. Collars feature owner ID, sometimes a chip, and usually flea-killing agent.

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?

This is the technological equivalent of leaving your child in a pram at the bottom of the garden, something my grandparents regularly did to my father. Because it was the 60s, and that was just what they did in the 60s.
You know the child is there, you know the child is screaming, but you don't care and you're ignoring it.

That is child neglect, which is child abuse.

It hasn't worked. It's lead to some of the worst atrocities in the past hundred years.

That's a pretty bold claim.
I'm going to need to see some evidence.

Era when corporal punishment was not only accepted at home but also implemented institutionally in schools:
Boer War concentration camps
WWI
Chemical attacks on natives in Abyssinia
WWII
Rape of Nanking
Holocaust
Holodomor
Pol Pot regime
Idi Amin regime
Vietnam War atrocities
Iran-Iraq War
Genocide of the Kurds
Genocide of the Bosniak muslims

Era when corporal punishment was considered wrong and prohibited:
Abu Graibh atrocity
Execution of single Taliban wounded fighter by British soldiers

[Laerod]

And I'm arguing that not even that is truly ok and that it is still abuse. It teaches the child that violence is a means to obtain obedience and more often than not instills a desire to see "wrongdoing" punished. If there's one thing my parents spanking me taught me, it was to stab my sister with a safety pin when I thought she was misbehaving. I've managed to outgrow that but it is very clear many on these very forums and in our societies have not. Studies show that violence perpetuates itself and that it drastically increases the risk of anxiety or anger issues later on in life. No one's arguing against disciplining children (as you've noted), but some of us are most definitely arguing that it needs to be done without violence and without bullying.

There's always a time and place.

Nah.

My dad, for instance, used to threaten a swat on the bum after he repeatedly tried to tell us calmly not to do it and the reasons why and he also punished up. He never did it, but he had to once he had told us many times just so we learned that he meant what he said (which is why I got three times the good old swat on the bum).

That doesn't make my parent an abusive parent, really. The whole point of it wasn't to abuse or to exert power, but since he did warn us that he was going to spank us he thought if he didn't we'd disrespect him and trample over his authority if he didn't follow through with what he said he would do. We still had a lot of leeway to express our opinions, but he made sure to draw the line on tone.

This is entirely anecdotal. If used to support studies that show that there's no harm in it, using personal experience to drive the point home makes sense. On their own, your statements are irrelevant. A parent need not be an abuser to occasionally engage in abuse; the world isn't black and white and even good people do wrong. The point is, studies show that corporal punishment has only limited short term effectiveness and that it risks breeding some rather major disorders. That it won't always do so is not an argument in favor of doing it; rather, the extant risk included when using violence to discipline a child is an argument in favor of erring on the side of never hitting a child. And let's be honest: Anyone arguing in favor of hitting children to any degree better have a damn lot more than anecdotal evidence to support the claim that it does no harm.

The position I'm espousing often an incredibly uncomfortable position for someone to switch to. If hitting children is never ok, what does that say about one's own parents? For parents that have used corporal punishment, what does that say about them? As I said, occasional abusive acts do not necessarily make someone an abuser. The point is to stop treating physical punishment as something that should be done. This is incidentally why most countries that have banned corporal punishment don't readily prosecute parents that still engage in it.

[Laerod]

Era when corporal punishment was considered wrong and prohibited:
Abu Graibh atrocity
Execution of single Taliban wounded fighter by British soldiers

Abu Graibh was still committed by a society where corporal punishment is not only still legal, but often systematic child abuse is encouraged by certain religious groups. So it should not be considered as an example of what happens after corporal punishment is considered wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

We're still in that era.

[Laerod]

We're still in that era.

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

[Purpelia]

We're still in that era.

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Have you actually read that article? It basically details how a few idiot parents are taking things too far. I'd hardly call it a "duty" or "circles" for that implies that there is an actually connected social circle of these people.

[Goeiehoopland]

Unwittingly, nature actually equipped every parent on the planet with one of these hypothetical devices.
We've just gotten kind of soft about using them.

[Laerod]

Depends, really. Most of Western Europe has banned it. Might take a while for families to follow suit (a study showed that the beatings continue until morale improves particularly over Christmas time in Germany), but it's better than in America where child abuse is considered a duty among some influental groups.

Have you actually read that article? It basically details how a few idiot parents are taking things too far. I'd hardly call it a "duty" or "circles" for that implies that there is an actually connected social circle of these people.

Don't lie:

Since the book’s original publication in 1994, a bevy of child abuse cases have citied the Pearls' evangelical guidebook as the source of the offending parents’ behavior, but formal action has never been taken against the authors. (A substantial collection of reports can be found here.)

Mind you, I picked the first decent article I could find because going on extensive searches strains the capacity of the machine I'm using. My opinion is based on quite a bit more, specifically countless testimonies by homeschooled and evangelical children. The attitude espoused by the Pearls regarding "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is extremely common among evangelicals even in cases where it doesn't reach the systematic approach to beating children that the Pearls recommend even on children too young to understand.

[Lost heros]

Unwittingly, nature actually equipped every parent on the planet with one of these hypothetical devices.
We've just gotten kind of soft about using them.

I thought we were trying to prevent potential child abuse.

[Goeiehoopland]

Unwittingly, nature actually equipped every parent on the planet with one of these hypothetical devices.
We've just gotten kind of soft about using them.

I thought we were trying to prevent potential child abuse.

Oh, is that what we're trying to do?
I pray you'll forgive my confusion, but surely you must understand that if our means to that end is to flippantly put them on a daily regimen of psychostimulants that come with the pesky baggage of substance abuse and overdose risk, it could pretty easy for someone to presume that the goal isn't to prevent "abuse" so much as to conduct partially-informed reactionary witchhunts against contemporary (yet ever-fluid) popular definitions thereof.

[Sebtopiaris]

only if you're willing to have it used on you.