Are kids shows realy for kids?

I argue that paents concentrate what's in adult programing even though ironically most kids don't get it, much less parot it. I think that some makers of kids shows and movies target crude fare for what exactly their audience gets and will repeat.

http://www.helium.com/items/1158450-are-disney-and-nickelodeon-shows-really-appropriate-for-all-ages

Kind of just like my point on Honk that the "a88" lyric is just for a cheap laugh substituting for cleverness to appeal to an age that thinks its great.

The horror of modern parenting

Helium is starting to get picky about letting people pick their own titles! I am not happy, but didn't want to save this on my computer because it would be instantly lost forever, not that it is treasure or anything.

I honestly don't know whether this is one of those things that we all say is getting worse and wasn't like that when we were young. But a terrible encounter with the product of modern parenting on my recent vacation made me think that it must be that a boundary of some kind was crossed in the way we have all been brought up. And much of the behavior of kids is eerily paralleled in the behavior of adults that don't like to get as good as they give.

On my recent trip through various hotels down the west coast I went to one of those racks of pamphlets and was looking at them. A child, a four year old blonde girl, came up to me and started aggressively bossing me around about what I was doing. At first she said, No, No! Probably she had been told not to touch the pamphlets, but probably not by her own parents.

Helium accepted this eventually, now I have to get all the personal stuff out of it eventually!

http://www.helium.com/items/1160496-parenting-bad-behavior-theory-psychology-nature-nurture

What's the harm in wrongness? This.

People often get a little defensive when they want to just believe in general theories that are very wrong. Because many of them think that there is no harm in it and they should be able to think and even argue wrong things if they want to do it and should be left alone and not made to even see how wrong they are.

Of course there are many things that serve as good candidates of things that people defend, mainly because they would like to believe them for whatever reason. They think they should be left alone with their theories, even if they are about politics or medicine or whatever that affect the rest of us. The people that point out that things other people say and think don't make sense are to be the real enemy, say they, not the people that thought the things in the first place.

Of course the first set of people, the ones who care about just whether something is right or wrong objectively, isn't making what should be just a logical argument with premeses and evidence and all of that instead about who is an enemy or who is evil and who isn't. The first set merely think that thinking something wrong is not good in and of itself and should be avoided at all costs.

But the latest Casey Anthoney child abduction (a la Susan Smith) case bolsters the others like it, and illustrates very keenly that we have an obligation toward rooting out things that aren't true from our world views no matter whether we see how they are harmfull or not.

Everyone from Scott Petersen to Susan Smith to this new one that said her daughter got abducted by some babysitter did what they did with a cover that they thought would be easily believable: people that are strangers are more likely to abduct your loved ones than you are. No one should believe, unless they believe the stranger abduction theory is stronger than it actually is, that a babysitter would want to take a kid FOREVER and not be able to hand them BACK TO THEIR PARENTS.

Babysitters pretty much are always dying to hand a kid back to their parents and wouldn't run off with it particularly if it meant not being paid for their time. That doesn't happen, except in the world that we have created with our stranger abduction theory. I remember working at CARES, a child assessment center, that there was like NEVER a stranger abduction case EVER the whole three years I worked there. It was one of five main cases but it never got its box checked. It was pretty much always the parent or at the very least the teacher. A stranger never came by the house and put the kid in the trunk. That has happened like once or twice ever in the history in this country, and albeit a horrible thing, it hasn't become a common one. Just because it has ascended to the level of public consciousness like it has doesn't make it more common.

There are some cases in the news. Of course Elizabeth Smart and that girl who had an affair with Gary Condit. Gary Condit is going to go down as the most unlucky guy in the history of the universe. Or the most stupid, or both. He was a nobod congressman from Modesto California and had to go and have an affair with some moon eyed intern, making it seem like it was obviously him because that is what one would call guilty behavior.

He probably was one of the ones that didn't do it. But it is SO RARE that nobody cared, really, he pretty much looked guilty anyway, because in a way he was. But on the whole those things are VERY RARE. Likely if there is an angry mother that lies pathologically and seems motivated to please her boyfriend and nothing else, it is likely that she will be the only one suspected in her daughter's disappearance.

Therefore, like Scott Petersen, if he thought that the stranger abduction theory would provide any cover for a murderous deed, then that theory itself has been an accomplice to murder and other terrible things. We never really know when that is going to happen.

So my thinking is, no matter how much it may seem that something is a good idea to believe, unless it is actually TRUE, it could be very harmful and must be stopped. It sounds a bit harsh and dramatic, but what could be worse than this latest example?