Maybe stop thinking that for a second and pretend you are actually supposed to give me an actual answer. I mean, it's neat and easy and all that, I understand, but you're flat out wrong and that you are just looking at an exit while being unintentionally ironic. I am not teasing these abstract arguments, I am time and time telling you stop with the logical fallacies and generalities, give me the argument for this situation. I also love how you hold exactly the BS responses I complain about, including yours, against me.
You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote.
So you would rather talk about the messenger, than the message, also ignoring that some people with kids say the same fucking thing. Well, I already established that, too, the question is how often are you going to repeat proving it?
from where I stand, it looks like you were coming up with criticism and theories you never bothered to verify in any way
?
"have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you"
And I run into PLENTY of adults who just tried to use their privilege, or lies, for shortcut solutions. I know how they fared. So what exactly don't I have experience with, other than doing it to someone else?
"I suggest you read Steve Yegge's"
I suggest you actually address the content of my posts.
Which just goes to show you haven't actually bothered to look for those arguments.
No, it means I got a LOT of replies goin on and on about strawmen. I consider those replies to my posts, imagine that.
please stop throwing hissy fits because people called you out on your lack of credibility.
Well, I appreciate the irony and the projection. Mocking non-sequitur arguments repeating what they missed isn't throwing a hissy fit just because I'm not going out of my way to read the whole thread over and over, and your argument boils down to "believing in Santa doesn't hurt anyone either". Well, that still makes it an undesirable, unnecessary, mediocre thing at best. And I don't buy the whole "kids at 4 are super egotistical" either, some are rather protective of their baby sibling for example, so they clearly know what being disturbed is. Actually, I remember one thing my father told my when I was a kid, that you can't lie to babies, they always notice... I took that literally, and told my baby brother I'd go to the toilet, thinking "I will go to the kitchen instead". When I left the room and he failed to cry, I was disappointed, I was already planning on using him as lie detector. You see, the fact that you shrug off the myth of Santa, the uttering of which would have been like crapping on the carpet for my family, just tells me we experienced and live in different worlds. And I couldn't care less about the additional credibility which the "parent" flag would give me, it's just not relevant; if I have kids they might turn out to be completely different persons who I was. But instead of speculating about a kid who is not me, even if it's "mine", I actually do remember. As you say so ironically, "Feel free to disagree", feel free to claim I remember wrong or whatever; but don't throw hissy fits just because your kids don't notice that shit.
It's interesting that you're responding from the perspective of a child to a statement from the perspective of a parent.
Yeah, it's almost as if it's a relationship between two humans, instead of a one-way input pipe.
Do you have children?
What makes you ask? That I respect kids more than quite a bunch of folks who are actually raising some? Or is that just an attempt to dismiss what I said without addressing it? That shit is getting real old.
So you're not a parent, but say the following... that's hilarious and not worth further comment. But here's the reply I would have made to a parent, anyway.
The fact that your intuition is deceiving you is expert knowledge.
Nah, it's gotta have slightly more substance than that; no matter how often you repeat it. Just literally telling me to shut up won't cut it either.
Riddle me this, how is it not possible to tell your kid you want them to be not yell so loud when playing computer games impossible, and in what situation is it preferably to deceive them? If they actually respect their toys more than their parents, that's clearly a FUBAR situation.
You might say you don't know, because you are not familiar with the details. Well then, what of the stuff you do have experience with would lead you to say "hands off, it's 'their' children"? I mean, by this logic you also give carte blanche to any and all abuse, too: after all, nobody should judge what people do with 'their' children. I say bollocks to that, and am still waiting for a single argument that actually applies to this situation, instead of just hiding behind generalities, strawmen and logical fallacies.
Funnily you ignore that everybody who was a kid usually has about 10 years of all sorts of adults trying all sorts of things on them. And some of them were bright, separated the wheat from the chaff right then and there, and do remember. Sure, if you know that AND parenting, I'd like to hear your advice. But if you don't have the faintest clue what that even means, you could raise 10 kids and I would not be impressed.
Look, I know you have your own opinion and all, but I don't think you're really even qualified to discuss this if you haven't done any programming before.
Yeah, but if the programmer actually does have the experience, he CAN prove it, albeit in language the layman may not understand or follow. I don't see this happening here in this particular case. And therefore...
The layman feels challenged. "Okay, if you're the big expert here, why don't you just share some of this so-called expertise with the rest of us?"
The amateur is perplexed. "...that's what I'm doing."
This discussion will never arrive at a productive result.
Where are you guys doing that, sharing the expert knowledge? You skip INSTANTLY to "only parents would understand", AND you ignore the facts that some parents disagree, which is rendering your entire argument zilch -- that isn't hard to get, I already mentioned that and am now repeating; will you repeat with an even bigger wall of text every time I point out that flaw? Are you treating me like a kid, perhaps? No need to explain, just keep using big words and bloat it up? Pah.
What on Earth has "yelling while playing" have to do with "yelling at a person" --- ?? I am truly tired of all these strawman being trotted out. Some actual replies would be nice.
He will talk with other children but not yell. [..] Lots of children also behave like my son.
Does he also not ever squee real loud for sheer excitement? You know, humans only have a short window where they can even experience the world that intensely. Sometimes it's good to let them.
I also think that if you make clear the boundaries for children, they will honor them.
Yes, but I think it's important to have good reasons (there's plenty for "don't yell at people", not so many for "do not ever, under any circumstances, exceed this loudness threshold while playing"), and to be honest about them; like you are, and like the OP decidedly isn't. Even just "you cannot understand that yet", if it's actually true and spoken in a bond of trust, can be enough. But "the magic pixie dust in the computer has spoken because I can't be arsed to tell you to shut up while I leave you alone with the computer?" Nah.
I will grant that using this on someone else without their knowledge is more questionable
If you set that alarm, you know why and what for you are conditioning yourself, and that is even true if you know how and why someone else set it; but when it's just a faceless event that you learn to adapt to, possibly while even having a narrative about it that has nothing to do with reality, that's not just slightly different or worse, for me that's worlds apart.
Until you talk to a few parents and they say, "2+2=5? Yeah, we tried that. It worked pretty well up until 6 or 7 when we were able to have a real conversation about addition. Why do you think that's wrong?"
I would ask what did they mean by "working"? If the kid doesn't understand addition anyway, and asks what is 2+2, why not tell them 4? What would be the rationale to say it's 5, what is "working" here? It answered the question, but so would the correct answer.
Then you might realize that, yes, not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.
If that parenting knowledge gives people expert insight, why don't they share it? Why hide behind "only parents would understand" (even ignoring that some parents disagree with them)? Why not refute the so obviously wrong armchair amateur advice with the correct facts? I see lots of talk, where is the money?
not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.
It's cute, but sadly I saw what you did there: What or who, other than asexually reproducing life forms, or maybe those that lay eggs, does not know anything about parenting?
Since it's all just anecdotal anyway, I also like to think back to teachers and other adults. As a general rule, those who treated me "as an equal" (not an actual equal, but without condescension or trickery that wasn't for the purpose of humour or pain/fright relief), I loved to learn from, did never mind to be corrected by. The rest? I found holes in their facade and had at them. Nature abhors a vacuum, and strong children abhor fake authority. Weak parents think disrespect is the problem, when often enough it's their own weakness. Children aren't "programmed" by nature to be a pain in the ass, far from it. They are "programmed" to learn, to be curious, and to love even. It actually takes quite a bit of fuckery to destroy that, but our society is good at it. And then those kids become parents and perpetuate it.
And frankly, most of the criticism has nothing to do with parenting but with intellectual honesty and how much you yourself understand about the world. If you teach your kid 2+2=5, I will be sure that is wrong, and "but you don't have kids" is a hilarious rebuttal.
Don't deceive them, let them be kids, yadda yadda are almost funny to read. Like you said, walk a mile in the parents' shoes.
Or, have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you. Of course, since such gifted parents are rare, it's easy to simply dismiss such a high standard. But once you go non-bullshit, it's just hard to go back.
No one in this comment thread has expressed an opinion anywhere near one of being opposed to allowing kids to yell out of joy or fright.
The topic is about the question how to blank the screen when a certain loudness threshold is reached. Which means "is even anyone else in the house" or other such factors do not enter into it. Which in turn means this isn't teaching politeness, this is like teaching a dog; no disrespect to dogs intended, but I mean that they usually just learn what to do, not why (which is fine in the case of a dog, unacceptable for a kid).
Maybe it just seems like being dramatic to you because I'm actually paying attention to the finer details here, and you don't. I complain about this specific case, and you defend it because there's sometimes a reason to tell a kid to not yell etc... which is funny, but not quite the rebuttal you imagine it to be.
Telling a kid to quiet down while playing a PC game is simply to teach them to respect the presence of others around them.
I completely agree; what in anything I wrote makes you think I don't? And what about the topic makes you think what is being done here?
Though I would add that I wouldn't want to be the person who doesn't sometimes also get joy out of the loud expression of joy from others. Depends on what you're doing etc.,.. so respect also means letting the kids holler sometimes. Respect doesn't just go one way, and if you haven't made children to become happy humans, what have you made them for?
But don't get sidetracked, remember: The parent in question does NOT tell their kids "I want you to be more quiet, so I made this script", they outright lie (and proudly report that it's working, too), and even seek to automate it just to put a hard cap on the loudness levels of their kids.
And that's okay because it's effective, gets the desired result, case closed...? Well pah, I disagree, just like I also frown upon telling kids they should be nice so Santa gives them presents; not because I am against being nice, but because I'm against the layer of indirection and dishonesty.
This is the second time I responded to a strawman, and I find that telling in and of itself. I have nothing against something the parent in question isn't even doing, I have something against what they actually are doing. Is that so hard to understand? You don't turn kids into "good adults" by not taking them seriously and telling them the computer is annoyed by loud noise... What. The. Fuck. That this topic is not _full_ of ridicule, just like the comments on the linked site, is just sad.
If they want to yell while playing games, then they can play games outside.
Not computer games they can't. And not in all seasons/kinds of weather, either.
I'm fairly certain that every mother ever has told her children to stop yelling in the house at least once.
And I'm fairly certain every parent (mother? what?) also sometimes allowed it. You know, politeness is kind of about a sentient counterpart, rather a fixed sound threshold in a panopticon.
From the single bit of data I have, your idea of repression seems to be anything less than complete anarchy
How so? If I think it's repressing if a child is under no circumstance allowed to yell out in joy or fright while playing? What does this have to do with anarchy? That's not anarchy, that's life.
There is also CodePen ( http://codepen.io/ ), and dabblet ( http://dabblet.com/ ) now seems to have (alpha) javascript support, too; the more, the merrier :D
Wat. I'm sure lots of work that gets done at Microsoft is misguided or redundant. Welcome to working at a big company.
You misunderstood me, I don't really care about the fate of anyone working there. I am more thinking about the brain space wasted with deceptive marketing claims, the money extracted from people, not to mention schools, and the horrible waste of people investing in learning about the MS ecosystem and the proliferating it. Microsoft learned to eat chalk, and the hard and scary way it learned to open up a little, but Mr. Bill Gates was once perfectly looking forward to the internet being a flop and everybody using MSN, to name just one of dozens examples clearly mapping the ugly underbelly. And far from silentely trying to improve the world without caring about the credit too much, MS was always keen on talking about stuff they didn't come up with as if they did, without technically lying.
Microsoft isn't special in that regard, sure, but to me even the best achievements are seen on the background of corporate armbandism and become morally worthless at best.
I am perfectly fine with someone who owes their life to the Gates foundation loving the guy, and happy for every life saved. But when it comes to me thinking Bill Gates is "cool", it just doesn't work out that way. So when someone else implies I kinda have to agree that this is all super awesome, I resist. Yes it is, but it doesn't make up for the other stuff, not one iota. Apologizing for all the lies and FUD about Linux, now that would be something... because hey, if people save money that way, they can buy healthy food, or go to a doctor of their choosing, and that's good thing, right? right?
Why is it always that we first allow a bunch of clowns to run just about everything, and then are grateful for the breadcrumbs they let trickle down? I am sure there are many people in China singing the praises of some party members who helped them get surgery or whatever. Yes, and? Take a step back, see the individual parts and how they fit together. Suddenly it's much less impressive, and the real heroes turn out to be the ones giving their lives to help others who DID NOT first sell a bunch of drugs or whatever to get the means to do so.
You're a troll.
Maybe stop thinking that for a second and pretend you are actually supposed to give me an actual answer. I mean, it's neat and easy and all that, I understand, but you're flat out wrong and that you are just looking at an exit while being unintentionally ironic. I am not teasing these abstract arguments, I am time and time telling you stop with the logical fallacies and generalities, give me the argument for this situation. I also love how you hold exactly the BS responses I complain about, including yours, against me.
You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote.
Right, and while you're lying you think you might just keep on with it, huh? Nope. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5156988
So you would rather talk about the messenger, than the message, also ignoring that some people with kids say the same fucking thing. Well, I already established that, too, the question is how often are you going to repeat proving it?