Hypothetical Time-Travel Scenario:

posted 19-Apr-2005 1:05pm

I wouldn't kill anyone. I would get my sibling sectioned. It would probably be more appropriate to section myself though, for believing such a thing.

southernyankee

posted 19-Apr-2005 1:29pm

I wouldn't kill my parents cause then I would cease to exist. I wouldn't kill my older simbling either cause then I would end up in juvi, since I couldn't prove anything and I am too selfish to go to juvi and possibly fudge up my life for a random victim. I'd probbably let it drop by my guidence counsoler about his not being right and point out his usual signs of being a serial killer (aren't there usually signs anway). If all else fails and I had the money, I might hire some woman to pretend to be into him without him knowing so that having a girlfriend might encouage him to be a bit more prosocial.

gingersnap

posted 19-Apr-2005 1:35pm

Kill my sibling in the past.

DucKid

posted 19-Apr-2005 2:32pm

Let's say you hate a grandmother or your mother was abused by her father, then kill your mother's father. Choose someone you hate or someone who made your parents/siblings life harder. If you made your siblings life harder, then kill yourself in the PAST! Kill one who deserves it. (You can't tell I'm against the death penalty!)

starrpickle

posted 19-Apr-2005 3:09pm

i would do nothing

Enheduanna

posted 19-Apr-2005 4:51pm

Why kill a parent? Why not just kill the sibling? Then again, why kill the sibling? Why not go back and get the sibling psychiatric help?
I probably wouldn't do anything.

posted 19-Apr-2005 7:47pm

I would do nothing; there are too many variables in playing with the past.

(reply to DucKid) posted 19-Apr-2005 7:48pm

you are too young to be for or against anything; you don't even know your own mind yet.

(reply to Matty) posted 19-Apr-2005 7:53pm

Why say that? When I was 12 I knew my own mind on a lot of issues.

(reply to Biggles) posted 19-Apr-2005 8:01pm

At 12, his opinions don't come from real life experience or education; they come from a reaction to his parents.

As far as any relavist, humanist argument you may care to develop, don't bother. 12 is a child's mind, regardless of what research or other exculpatory evidence to the contrary you may want to introduce. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

Further, I don't think real adulthood sets in until about 26-28; I'm sure you object to that as well, but I will remain unmoved by any argument you pose in that regard. That's how I feel based on my experience; call me what you like.

(reply to Matty) posted 19-Apr-2005 8:18pm

Where adulthood starts depends on the individual. In a lot of american youth culture, there's an extended adolescence of drinking, partying and irresponsibility. These kids start their "real" adulthood later. Then there's the kids who never went through a real adolescence, and had to skip right into responsibilities and the adult world before they reached 18. There are too many different kinds of human experiences to determine when adulthood starts. For some people, I think it starts when they enter the world of adult realities and are forced to grow up.

(reply to Matty) posted 19-Apr-2005 8:37pm

Fair enough then - I'll call you a man. Based on your own life experiences, you may well believe that younger people lack maturity. I think most women would disagree on the basis of *their* own experience.

Don't you think it's rather close-minded to say "No matter how much evidence to the contrary, I'll never change my mind"?

Besides, we weren't talking about child or adult - of course a 12 year old is a child. But why shouldn't a child be able to hold opinions of their own? I say again, I most certainly did.

(reply to Biggles) posted 19-Apr-2005 8:53pm

"But why shouldn't a child be able to hold opinions of their own? I say again, I most certainly did."
Have them sure, but they are not worth anything. Besides a 12-year-old should still be open-minded until he learns something.

"Don't you think it's rather close-minded to say "No matter how much evidence to the contrary, I'll never change my mind"?"
Close-minded...yes; my mind is already made, and I reject much relativist thinking. But I'm not wrong.

"Fair enough then - I'll call you a man. Based on your own life experiences, you may well believe that younger people lack maturity. I think most women would disagree on the basis of *their* own experience."
I don't really care how some women or some men may disagree. Plus, away from this environment I bet many more people would agree with me than you think. I've had this discussion before...in the flesh...and 26-28 is a pretty popular age.

(reply to Matty) posted 19-Apr-2005 9:05pm

I feel sorry for your daughter if you're going to believe that her opinions at 12 are not worth anything. And having opinions isn't the same as not being open-minded. Yet you seem to equate a lack of open-mindedness with maturity, even going so far as to be *proud* that you have a thoroughly closed-mind. It's just ignorant and arrogant to fly your belief in the face of whatever evidence comes your way because somehow "you always know best". Why are your experiences more valid than mine at every turn? How can you be so full of yourself that you think other's experiences could not add anything to your own?

(reply to Biggles) posted 19-Apr-2005 9:21pm

You'll be in a position to comment about my parenting skills when you yourself are a parent. Kindly refrain from commenting about my daughter; you haven't even the slightest notion of what kind of father I am.

You go right ahead and trust the judgement of twelve-year-olds if you like. Allow them to vote. Give them driver's licences. Do whatever you like.

However, 12 -year-olds are in no position to make political judgements, whatever you say to the contrary.

As far as your name slinging, call me what you like, but it doesn't seem to be a mature reaction, does it? Then again, maybe that's just par for your age group.

tweedle

posted 19-Apr-2005 10:04pm

I don't think people are born to be murderers, so I think I would go back in time and try to intervene with my sibling prior to him or her becoming a serial killer.

bcollins

posted 20-Apr-2005 1:03am

I don't know, but killing a parent or parents doesn't seem to be a valid option. Neither does killing my sibling. I wouldn't be any better than he/she is if I committed murder.

bcollins

(reply to tweedle) posted 20-Apr-2005 1:09am

While I don't believe that all murderers are born that way, I do think they can be made. The same goes for serial sexual offenders. Often these people are repeatedly traumitized as a child by authority figures and end up as murderers and sexual offenders. However, I do believe that there are those who are born without a conscience, namely sociopaths. They know right from wrong, but don't care how their actions affect others. They are often extremely charming and manipulative. A good example would be Ted Bundy.

posted 20-Apr-2005 3:14am

I'd do none of these.

(reply to Biggles) posted 20-Apr-2005 3:20am

I felt it was quite important to listen to the opinions of my children from the moment they voiced any. Quite often they had a supernatural naive wisdom worth following. It was also important to know them, respect them, and know what to explain to them. If you don't do these things, chances are you'll end up with kids whose opinions aren't worth anything until they hit the age of 12.

patarnone

posted 20-Apr-2005 4:43am

I would get The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it would give me the answer. WAIT, I already KNOW the answer, it's 42 but I forgot the question again!

Amanda

posted 20-Apr-2005 5:17am

I would provide the cereal.

gambler

posted 20-Apr-2005 8:07am

I honestly don't know

Zang

posted 20-Apr-2005 10:21am

I would do the time travel thing, but I wouldn't kill anyone. I'd buy a winning lottery ticket instead. So my brother is a serial killer, whatever...

darkroomdanny

posted 20-Apr-2005 11:11am

What a strange scenario. If my sibling was to become a serial killer they would have to kill more than one person. I guess I would try to avoid it that happening, but not by killing anyone.

Also, if I killed my parents before they had me I wouldn't exist to kill them!

(reply to Zang) posted 20-Apr-2005 12:04pm

Good thinking!

they

posted 20-Apr-2005 1:17pm

I would do nothing.

(reply to Matty) posted 20-Apr-2005 2:47pm

And back we go...

Wolfgang

(reply to Locutus) posted 20-Apr-2005 6:02pm

Loc, this could not happen as you would create a ' Time Travel Paradox'...killing a parent would prevent you from being born which would prevent you from going back in time to kill one of your parents. These are the rules of our Universe!

freebird

posted 20-Apr-2005 6:05pm

man, I don't know what I would do.

Wolfgang

(reply to Matty) posted 20-Apr-2005 6:05pm

And she believes I purposely bait users without any form of explanation. All I know about her is she attends a university and does not like Disneyland.

(reply to Wolfgang) posted 20-Apr-2005 6:19pm

You do have a point there.

Danger

posted 20-Apr-2005 7:46pm

In time travel, hypothetically you wouldn't be able to kill a parent before they had you because otherwise you couldn't come back in time to kill them. See the problem? And since I have an older sibling, I can knowingly say that nothing he ever does will be enough to make me be able to kill him. I don't think I have the killing in me.

BerrieGrrl

posted 20-Apr-2005 11:23pm

i don't know because time travel confuses me...what happens when i travel back in time and kill my parents before i'm ever conceived? where do i go? space-time continuum, flux capacitor, whatever...and i sure as hell don't know what i'd do in this situation...if i killed my parents, couldn't i almost be the serial killer then?

BrightBlue

posted 21-Apr-2005 9:56pm

I would do nothing. You don't mess with the flow of time. If my sibling was going to become a serial killer then it was meant to be so. What right do I have to interrupt the natural cycle.

(reply to BrightBlue) posted 21-Apr-2005 10:02pm

"I disrupted the space-time continuum and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

Theres someone in my culdesac that has a custom plate "BRYBLU" It reminds me of you.

(reply to LindaH) posted 22-Apr-2005 1:45am

I love that shirt slogan.

darkshadowsseeker

(reply to Amanda) posted 22-Apr-2005 9:09am

Happy Birthday Babe!

posted 22-Apr-2005 11:37am

"I got sucked into an interdimentional vortex and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"

Theres a school district somewhere that makes kids put on a school mascot shirt over their shirt (or change into it) if they are wearing an offensive t shirt. I think the mascot shirts should be replaced with "I violated the dress code policy and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

Iseult

posted 22-Apr-2005 12:25pm

I chose to pass on this one.

(reply to LindaH) posted 22-Apr-2005 5:15pm

Interesting.

Dino

posted 22-Apr-2005 5:31pm

I hope I would do nothing on the hope that the future can change.

Who knows what messing with the past could cause. Maybe having two children stopped your parents becoming serial killers.

Zang

(reply to LindaH) posted 22-Apr-2005 9:23pm

I just try to answer the questions honestly. That is, unless I can lie and say something funny!

Amanda

(reply to darkshadowsseeker) posted 23-Apr-2005 8:49am

Thanks sweet!

ROCKMAN

posted 23-Apr-2005 9:46am

I wouldn't do anything, I don't think.

romkey

posted 23-Apr-2005 1:08pm

I'm amazed that you think the only way to solve a problem like this is to kill people.

romkey

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:09pm

> At 12, his opinions don't come from real
> life experience or education; they come from
> a reaction to his parents.

I know too many people three times his age whose opinions are reactions to their parents

(reply to romkey) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:29pm

You mean they still agree with their parents and never contemplated anything else, or they are still reacting with opposition to their upbringing?

(reply to romkey) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:33pm

maybe so, but at 12 years old having very strong opinions is bad; he should be learning and discovering, not dictating policy.

Kids do not have the same rights nor command the same respect as adults, and they shouldn't. To think otherwise is relativism gone too far. The maturity level to make deliberate, fact-based decisions just isn't there.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:39pm

A kid can learn and discover at the same time as having strong opinions. Nothing says his opinions aren't going to be changed, or are going to be totally closed off to new information.
I had strong opinions at age 12. They weren't political or policy based, they were about school rules and parents rules, and about how people should and shouldn't act. I think all kids do. If a kid didn't have opinions at age 12, I would think something was wrong.

darkshadowsseeker

(reply to Amanda) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:50pm

> Thanks sweet!
You're welcome.

darkshadowsseeker

(reply to BerrieGrrl) posted 23-Apr-2005 1:54pm

Technically you can't travel back in time to change history as it's already occurred. That would create a paradox. If that were possible then someone could go back in time and kill an important historical figure or stop one from being killed and, therefore, change history. However, since the future is as yet unwritten, it should be possible to change it.

romkey

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 6:00pm

more in opposition - their world views are far too much shaped by their experiences growing up.

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 7:07pm

I didn't say kids shouldn't be allowd to think or have opinions. That's not what this is about.

The point is a 12-year-old should not be steadfast in a belief where he can't possibly master the scope and implications of that opinion, an opinion like death penalty policy, which is waht this discussion was about. Further, what minors think and want is irrelevant under the law

If however, you think children should be in a position to do so, you would be in quite a minority.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 7:18pm

I don't think they should be in a position to affect policy. I know their opinions are irrelevant under the law. But there is absolutely no harm in them having an opinion on political topics. They aren't voting. They aren't affecting policy. They are merely stating their opinion. Steadfast or not, I can't see the harm in that. It makes them feel good, important, and worthwhile. It shows that they are thinking. Would you rather see a kid totally apathetic to the issues? Ask him to argue his opinion. See what he says. He's using ethical and moral thoughts. I can't see how that can be anything but a good thing.
Why do they have debate class in high school?

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 8:28pm

My cousin DJ and his wife Susan are both teachers. He is a high school social studies teacher and she is an elementary special education teacher. Both of them have told me time and time again since we had Cynthia to discourage strong opinions even if we agree with those opinions as it breeds stubbornness as adults, especially when those opinions are about things that are far too complex. We have debate teams for that exact reason, so children can research and argue any side of an opinion, not blindly follow one.

Should we engage children, of course, but woe to allowing children becoming idealogues before they can even vote; it breeds closemindedness. Discussing things is great; but having a twelve-year-old say "I'm strongly for...; my mind's made up," is indeed, intellectually dangerous for that child and for society

How many people do you know that have not grown intelectually since high school?

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 8:56pm

I see what you mean, but I think kids will change their mind or rethink their positions, remaining open minded whether they realize they will or not. I never saw DucKid saying his mind was made up, though.
I can understand a kid who's mind is not made up on anything except only one thing, and remaining steadfast on that one thing. As long as he's given it plenty of thought, (and there is plenty of time to give only one topic plenty of thought) and he knows a lot about it, I don't see much harm in that.
Everyone grows intellectually after high school. I know what you mean about steadfastness, but I can't help thinking there must be some exceptions. (I like pondering exceptions.)

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:15pm

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me, Duck Kid is already stubborn, and needs to be challenged intellectually, but this crtainly isn't the place to do it.

No, I don't think everyone does grow intellectually after High School. I know plenty of people who seemingly haven'e changed at all, alarmingly so.

I never worry about exceptions, many of the "exceptions" I am told about or have seen aren't exceptions at all, just people who see themselves as such.

Intellectual stimulation for children is very important, but I still don't think children's opinions are important at all.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:22pm

Even if you don't see children's opinions as important, it does more harm than good to tell them that, especially if you were the parent. You don't want a kid growing up to think their opinion wasn't important, do you?
Sometimes a kid knows exactly what they think about one thing in particular, and they turn out to be right. They were sure the whole time because they were right, not because they were stubborn.

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:27pm

Let's call that poor writing on my part. I would try very hard not to be dismissive; let's say children's opinions, apart from their value as to stimulate a young mind, have little intrinsic value.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:36pm

I never thought about it before, but I know what you mean about steadfastness at a young age causing closed mindedness. Still, if a kid happened to agree with me (but came to that opinion on their own, with no input from me) on a topic i felt very strongly about, I'd be tempted to just let them keep feeling that way.

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:37pm

I think everyone would at that.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:44pm

I've had a very strong pet peeve/opinion since 3rd grade, and that was the only strong opinion I held at that age. No one challenged me on it. To this day, I still feel the same way about it, but not because I'm closed minded and stubborn about it, but because I know I'm right.

I have listened to other views, though, and actively sought the opposite opinion.

(reply to LindaH) posted 23-Apr-2005 9:49pm

Of course, you have to believe what's in your gut at some point, and that's fine; perhaps even if it stems back to the third grade. What most people don't get about theoretical education is that its application is limited, and eventually you have to force yourself to make a decision or become a college professor, constantly contemplating, never living.

I am anything, but a relativist myself. At some point, relativism is nothing more than mental masturbation.

(reply to Matty) posted 23-Apr-2005 10:02pm

Oh, I know what you mean there! I sometimes visit a forum where these people like to go on and on and on in circles, and I can't really see them agreeing or disagreeing. They're trying to get new ideas out of thin air.