Should Sesame Street be discussing the topic of divorce?

[thenammagazine]

"God i love ypthis place"

 

[devilof76]

What kid has no one? Somebody either made the kid, feeds the kid or teaches the kid.

Right. Because making feeding or teaching the kid (divorce in school? what's next, gay rights? ) automatically means that they're raising the kid. Like I said, your perspective is completely obtuse. People whine about parents using television to raise kids, and then when someone suggests that there are kids who have nothing available to them but television, suddenly no one is leaving their kids to be raised by television. Since that's not the case, then I guess there's no reason to extend programming to those who aren't not being raised by not television.

 

[CAhobbit]

This may be news to you but the kid has this thing called SCHOOL, you may have heard of it, has teachers, counselors, books and such. I'm also going to go out on a limb and also suggest that he has aunts, uncles, elder siblings, cousins, grandparents that he can turn to for actual guidance.

All true...but there are cases (be it not some kind of widespread epidemic) where a child just may actually not have a person they can turn to for various reasons (be it fear, being shy, no reliable adult support, etc.). So what can be done to help those kids? I really have no answer because what works for one child doesn't always work for another.

 

[jstep13]

Right. Because making feeding or teaching the kid (divorce in school? what's next, gay rights? ) automatically means that they're raising the kid. Like I said, your perspective is completely obtuse. People whine about parents using television to raise kids, and then when someone suggests that there are kids who have nothing available to them but television, suddenly no one is leaving their kids to be raised by television. Since that's not the case, then I guess there's no reason to extend programming to those who aren't not being raised by not television.

Like I said, your perspective is completely obtuse.

Right, and your perspective is one of a position of ignorance, so whatever, I guess, to each it's own.

 

[jstep13]

All true...but there are cases (be it not some kind of widespread epidemic) where a child just may actually not have a person they can turn to for various reasons (be it fear, being shy, no reliable adult support, etc.). So what can be done to help those kids? I really have no answer because what works for one child doesn't always work for another.

And again, that may be true but it's probably a very small minority and if that's the case then the kid has bigger issues to deal with than understanding divorce. And if we allow divorce then what next? Who draws the line and what is the line? It's a Pandora's box of sorts. And by having a children's show teach these kids about divorce, what kind of training and experience do they have? These are TV show writers, not therapists.

 

[devilof76]

If we allow divorce to be discussed? Pardon us, oh great Czar of Morality.

Right, and your perspective is one of a position of ignorance, so whatever, I guess, to each it's own.

Whatever helps keeps your nose in the air, bub.

 

[jstep13]

If we allow divorce to be discussed? Pardon us, oh great Czar of Morality.



Whatever helps keeps your nose in the air, bub.

Right back at ya, pal. And I prefer to be addressed as "your majesty"

 

[devilof76]

Except that it doesn't apply in my case. I'm not armchair social engineering for the greater good, entertaining pretentions of controlling the content other people's kids are exposed to on children's television.

 

[jstep13]

Except that it doesn't apply in my case. I'm not armchair social engineering for the greater good, entertaining pretentions of controlling the content other people's kids are exposed to on children's television.

What are you talking about? That's exactly what you're doing

 

[devilof76]

Really? I'm the one prattling about what kids shouldn't be exposed to because their innocence needs to be preserved from some kind of arbitrarily stigmatized knowledge?

All I've argued is that it can't hurt, and in cases where it is needed, it has the potential to help. All you've done is wring your hands over how it will corrupt the minds of the youth (as Socrates sips his hemplock...) because apparently, only kids who don't need any kind of educational programming watch Sesame Street.

And what the hell are you doing leaving the foundations of your children's literary and mathematical education to television for in the first place? Don't you care enough about your kids to teach them ABC's and 123's yourself?

 

[jstep13]

Really? I'm the one prattling about what kids shouldn't be exposed to because their innocence needs to be preserved from some kind of arbitrarily stigmatized knowledge?

No you're prattling about what kids should be exposed to when it's not your business about what kids should be exposed to. We are both actually in essence, to piggy back your previous post, armchair social engineering for the greater good, we just have different perspectives. Make no mistake, we're both guilty of this, you're for it and I'm against it.

All I've argued is that it can't hurt, and in cases where it is needed, it has the potential to help. All you've done is wring your hands over how it will corrupt the minds of the youth (as Socrates sips his hemplock...) because apparently, only kids who don't need any kind of educational programming watch Sesame Street.

On what basis can you say "it can't hurt?" What kind of professional experience or scholarly research do you have that can prove it can't hurt and has the potential to help? How do you know this with such conviction?

And I'm all for educational programing, when did I say I wasn't? I would hardly call divorce educational. Do they teach divorce in K-12 these days?

 

[CAhobbit]

And again, that may be true but it's probably a very small minority and if that's the case then the kid has bigger issues to deal with than understanding divorce. And if we allow divorce then what next? Who draws the line and what is the line? It's a Pandora's box of sorts. And by having a children's show teach these kids about divorce, what kind of training and experience do they have? These are TV show writers, not therapists.

Seems like the line was crossed long ago, no? At least when it comes to what children can potentially be exposed to anyways...especially when it comes to broadcast television.

Seems like a possible solution would just to not include TV watching in a child's life or monitored TV viewing for the child if the concern is what they will be exposed to before they enter a more 'public' life (eg: Daycare, Pre-School, Elementary school, playing with friends, etc.). Seems like the only solution is for some kind of controlled environment for parents that wish to implement it. Perhaps.

So, should a kids show be teaching subjects like divorce? I can see the pros and cons of tackling something like that for a kids show. Maybe just teaching numbers and spelling is all a kids show should do. But what if broaching a subject that effects kids (like divorce or death) actually helps a handful of kids to better understand their own situation or just help with them emotionally...then I see it as a pro. On the other hand, I see the side where some kids might have an adverse effect to discussions on certain topics.

It's an interesting topic and one that has no clear cut answer from what I can see (given the opposite opinions happening here).

 

[devilof76]

No you're prattling about what kids should be exposed to when it's not your business about what kids should be exposed to. We are both actually in essence, to piggy back your previous post, armchair social engineering for the greater good, we just have different perspectives. Make no mistake, we're both guilty of this, you're for it and I'm against it.

How is trying to explain divorce to a kid that needs an explanation social engineering?

On what basis can you say "it can't hurt?" What kind of professional experience or scholarly research do you have that can prove it can't hurt and has the potential to help? How do you know this with such conviction?

Logic.

If a kid is not at risk of having parents divorce, are they so fragile that the mere mention of it is going to scar them? Then turn off the tv. Sesame Street dealt with death, years ago. If divorce is too scary, I can't imagine death being any less so.

If a kid is at risk, and their parents are too caught up in their own emotional reality to adequately explain it, how is it going to harm them to offer an objective perspective in a relatable medium?

And I'm all for educational programing, when did I say I wasn't? I would hardly call divorce educational. Do they teach divorce in K-12 these days?

How many 1-12 graders do you know who watch Sesame Street?

But if shedding light on social realities that you disapprove of, but that kids deal with regardless, is not educational, I guess we're going to have to limit all knowledge that you disapprove of in all educational settings where the students are too young to know what your moral code has decided is not appropriate for them.

 

[thenammagazine]

Except that it doesn't apply in my case. I'm not armchair social engineering for the greater good, entertaining pretentions of controlling the content other people's kids are exposed to on children's television.

So then you have kids and/or came from a broken home?

 

[devilof76]

Nope. 99% of the friends I grew up with (and am still friends with, well into adulthood) did.

Not that I had to experience it to have a clue.

 

[thenammagazine]

Nope.

.

 

[devilof76]

No. That's you concocting irrelevant garbage to make up for not having a valid argument of your own.

You smear the source because you can't touch the reasoning. Classic, transparent, and weak.

But I'll add that I have performed half of the child raising duties for my niece, for 12 years, who never had a whole family to break in the first place. I'm sure that's insufficient to challenge your red herring, but really, what is?

 

[thenammagazine]

No. That's you concocting irrelevant garbage to make up for not having a valid argument of your own.

You smear the source because you can't touch the reasoning. Classic, transparent, and weak.

No, the difference being I come from a broken home and have kids so I have a ****ing clue what I'm talking about. You? You're attempting to bull**** your way through a trollfest on a topic you're clueless about. If anybody's transparent here, it's you Mr. Armchair Divorced kid.

 

[devilof76]

Who gives a **** where you came from? You can't make the argument now. All you can do is manufacture character flaws in your opponent, and hope enough people are dim enough to fall for it. That is all you can ever do. Such a farce...

But at least you aren't a troll.

 

[thenammagazine]

Who gives a **** where you came from? You can't make the argument now. All you can do is manufacture character flaws in your opponent, and hope enough people are dim enough to fall for it. That is all you can ever do. Such a farce...

But at least you aren't a troll.

And this is where you dip into namecalling and further trolling because at the end of the day the blinds are pulled up and people see you really have nothing to contribute except to troll my posts because you're still mad about an argument you got the **** end of the stick on. Way to carry a grudge, Mr. Armchair.

And as for making an argument, I already have. Sesame Street shouldn't be wiping the ass of pathetic excuses for parents. Expecting public television to pick up the slack is no different then expecting the government to pick up the slack for those who refuse to work. It's not the village's job to raise the child of the village idiot. Sesame Street would do a better public service promoting abortion and contraception.