Should Sesame Street be discussing the topic of divorce?

[devilof76]

And your position is asinine.

You wouldn't know you lost an argument if it lopped your fat head clean off. You crawled away from the one you lost the night you trolled Voorhees into an uncontrollable rage, and you still think your sad excuse for debating that night was somehow rational. You got owned, miserably. Crying racist was all you had. You showed your true colors that night, and this is not holding a grudge. It's called integrity. You deserve no respect, and you will not get it from me.

Namecalling...are you ****ing kidding me? Next thing you know, I'll be getting lectured by the Pope on the virtues of resisting the urge to molest choirboys.

 

[jstep13]

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?

You're stuck on the kids who do need it, what about the one's who do not. But beyond that, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis tailored to that child's emotional needs which the show cannot obviously do. If they are having issues handling their parent's divorce, they need a child psychologist, not a puppet. And I also didn't think death was appropriate either on a kid's show but I don't want to spend another 50 posts on that subject so I'll leave it at that.

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.

Well many kids deal with a whole a wide variety of social realities, crack addicted parents, same sex parents, teen moms, incarcerated parents...I can go down a list. What about those kids who have a tough time dealing with those issues? Tough luck for them? It doesn't matter what I approve or don't approve of, what matters is what's appropriate for the children.

 

[thenammagazine]

And your position is asinine.

You wouldn't know you lost an argument if it lopped your fat head clean off. You crawled away from the one you lost the night you trolled Voorhees into an uncontrollable rage, and you still think your sad excuse for debating that night was somehow rational. You got owned, miserably. Crying racist was all you had.

Namecalling...are you ****ing kidding me? Next thing you know, I'll be getting lectured by the Pope on the virtues of resisting the urge to molest choirboys.

I rest my case. You're either too incompetent (which I don't believe you are) or too sanctimonious (which I do believe) to get that everybody who saw that, sees what you're doing.

And of course my position would look asinine to someone who's completely ignorant when it comes to the subject matter.

 

[devilof76]

Your case is invalid. As usual. I pity anyone who takes you seriously.

You're stuck on the kids who do need it, what about the one's who do not. But beyond that, it should be handled on a case-by-case basis tailored to that child's emotional needs which the show cannot obviously do. If they are having issues handling their parent's divorce, they need a child psychologist, not a puppet. And I also didn't think death was appropriate either on a kid's show but I don't want to spend another 50 posts on that subject so I'll leave it at that.

Well many kids deal with a whole a wide variety of social realities, crack addicted parents, same sex parents, teen moms, incarcerated parents...I can go down a list. What about those kids who have a tough time dealing with those issues? Tough luck for them? It doesn't matter what I approve or don't approve of, what matters is what's appropriate for the children.

Divorce is not comparable to crack addiction, etc.

I doubt Sesame Street presumes to treat the psychological needs of children who require therapy. All they're doing is breaching the subject so that the kids aren't completely lost. A parent who isn't attentive to basic needs isn't going to be attentive to complex needs either, and to sacrifice that simple gesture offered by the show because kids who don't need it might become unsettled is silly.

 

[jstep13]

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).

Well if the line is crossed long ago then I guess nothing matters anymore? Sorry I don't see it that way. Obviously disallowing children (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) from watching any TV is probably not an effective solution. I would like to think, and maybe I'm a little naive to believe this, that there is still children's programming that is safe for my child to watch without having to watch serious social issues.

Like you said, there are pros and cons, there are pros and cons to just about everything, but I would think that the cons far outweigh the pros in having to watch kids grow up to quickly when it's not necessary.

Again, let them have the rest of their life to grow up and be bitter old souls, six and younger is too early for my liking. If parents want to teach their individual child about divorce, by all means go to library, check out some books, make a picnic out of it, have at it.

I just don't think it's very responsible for a children's tv show to decide what's best for each and every child out there. I think the parents here can understand and relate to this idea a little better.

 

[DPrime]

This argument is getting crazy. I'm not sure what you all are afraid of here... So kids maybe understand a bit more why so-and-so lives with only one parent - this is somehow scary?

And Sesame Street isn't about replacing parenting or anything - but quite frankly, they can present an issue a lot more SKILLFULLY to a toddler in many cases. Just because I have a 14-month-old at home doesn't make me an expert at getting a message across to her.

And yeah, for the record, I am a father and I have no problem whatsoever with Sesame Street tackling this issue. Or homosexuality, or religion.

It's HOW they do it that's important - and they have a forty-plus year record of doing stuff like this in an appropriate and relatable manner. So no, I'm not worried in the least.

 

[devilof76]

Well said.

 

[Voorhees27]

And your position is asinine.

You wouldn't know you lost an argument if it lopped your fat head clean off. You crawled away from the one you lost the night you trolled Voorhees into an uncontrollable rage, and you still think your sad excuse for debating that night was somehow rational. You got owned, miserably. Crying racist was all you had. You showed your true colors that night, and this is not holding a grudge. It's called integrity. You deserve no respect, and you will not get it from me.

Namecalling...are you ****ing kidding me? Next thing you know, I'll be getting lectured by the Pope on the virtues of resisting the urge to molest choirboys.

That's not fair. Are you saying I don't have the intellect to know why or what i'd argue over? That's like saying i'm some feeble influenced child that doesn't know any better.

 

[jstep13]

Your case is invalid. As usual. I pity anyone who takes you seriously.



Divorce is not comparable to crack addiction, etc.

I doubt Sesame Street presumes to treat the psychological needs of children who require therapy. All they're doing is breaching the subject so that the kids aren't completely lost. A parent who isn't attentive to basic needs isn't going to be attentive to complex needs either, and to sacrifice that simple gesture offered by the show because kids who don't need it might become unsettled is silly.

Perhaps not comparable but has certainly affected many, many children out there. But they are breaching what need not be breached. It's not their right. And again, if they have a parent who is not attending to a basic gesture like listening to their children and guiding their child through a very tough time then that child has much more serious issues to deal with.

 

[devilof76]

Only reason it would not be their right is if you think that your tax contribution to the station gives you the power to control their content. However, your contribution is one of many and determining whether or not they can discuss divorce would be a decision to be arrived at by majority rule. I'm not aware that PBS has ever been required to put their content up for referendum.

That's not fair. Are you saying I don't have the intellect to know why or what i'd argue over? That's like saying i'm some feeble influenced child that doesn't know any better.

No. I'm saying that he cast everything I said in racist terms and you reacted to him instead of listening to what I was saying. I don't presume to know why you did. I know it didn't help that I fired back at you when you started insulting me, but it doesn't change the fact that he was full of ****.

Unless you're saying that you were right when you concluded that what I was saying was racist, but I thought we understood each other in that regard.

 

[karamazov80]

Man, devil and nam used to be buddies. Look what you've done, Sesame Street! I hope you're real ****ing happy with yourself!

 

[jstep13]

They should make an episode on dealing with internet friendship break-ups...

 

[CAhobbit]

Well if the line is crossed long ago then I guess nothing matters anymore? Sorry I don't see it that way. Obviously disallowing children (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) from watching any TV is probably not an effective solution. I would like to think, and maybe I'm a little naive to believe this, that there is still children's programming that is safe for my child to watch without having to watch serious social issues.

Like you said, there are pros and cons, there are pros and cons to just about everything, but I would think that the cons far outweigh the pros in having to watch kids grow up to quickly when it's not necessary.

Again, let them have the rest of their life to grow up and be bitter old souls, six and younger is too early for my liking. If parents want to teach their individual child about divorce, by all means go to library, check out some books, make a picnic out of it, have at it.

I just don't think it's very responsible for a children's tv show to decide what's best for each and every child out there. I think the parents here can understand and relate to this idea a little better.

Wait....you mean we're all bitter old souls past a certain age? That's kind of a sad thought.

I think the main issue is that people just have different ideas/opinions on how they want their children raised/be exposed to, etc. You're of the opinion that a children's show has no place in teaching certain subjects where as others think differently.

Which is the right opinion? Is there one? Of course you could insert any controversial topic and still come up with the same 'answers' (eg: A whole lot of different opinions). Again, it's a very interesting discussion going on here. Viewpoints are vastly on opposite ends of the spectrum for sure!

 

[devilof76]

It's a good case for why Sesame Street should get off the dole. If they took full responsibility for their funding, they could justify full control of their content. The decision would be theirs exclusively, to stand or fall on the merit of what value it holds for their viewers.

 

[The Ween]

I was going to read this thread but since it's already waaay too long, I'll skip it.

 

[The Josh]

I don't have kids but working with them at various ages for a profession I think it helps more than it hurts.

 

[devilof76]

I was going to read this thread but since it's already waaay too long, I'll skip it.

Chicken.

 

[The Ween]

It's 14 pages long already!!!

 

[devilof76]

I only count 4.

 

[Voorhees27]

No. I'm saying that he cast everything I said in racist terms and you reacted to him instead of listening to what I was saying. I don't presume to know why you did. I know it didn't help that I fired back at you when you started insulting me, but it doesn't change the fact that he was full of ****.

Unless you're saying that you were right when you concluded that what I was saying was racist, but I thought we understood each other in that regard.

At the time (and in previous times) I did. Regardless we've already talked about this and it's water under the bridge. Thanks for explaining yourself, I appreciate that.