• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bedtime reading could disadvantage other children, academic says

Re: Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

THE ABC has questioned whether parents should read to their children before bedtime, claiming it could give your kids an “unfair advantage” over less fortunate children.
“Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” asks a story on the ABC’s website.
“Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?”
The story was followed by a broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National that also tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.
“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.
Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”
Contacted by The Daily Telegraph, Gelonesi said the bedtime stories angle was highlighted by the ABC “as a way of getting attention”.
Asked if it might be just as easy to level the playing field by encouraging other parents to read bedtime stories, Gelonesi said: “We didn’t discuss that.”
Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.
“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.Professor Frank Oberklaid, from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute said he was bewildered by the idea.
“It’s one of the more bizarre things I’ve heard,” he said. “We should be bringing all kids up to the next level.”

obviously we should ban reading bedtime stories, in the interest of equality and looking out for the poor kids.

can't be having those greedy kids hoarding all the bedtime stories and using such trivialities to artificially inflate their societal worth... not when poor kids are starving for such stories and winding up as outcasts.

I'll get Bernie sanders on the job.. he's a voice for the little guy.. he can surely bring some equality to the stage here.
 
You are in denial about what the left stands for.

Nope, it very very plain that YOU are.

Again...a closed mind cannot be pried open from the outside. You have accepted what you've been fed.
 
Really?!

We now should consider how our good parenting actions might give our kids an advantage in life while other kids don't have that advantage? We're supposed to feel guilty about that? Maybe we should feel guilty about feeding our children healthy meals and providing them with warm, functional clothing too.

About that, I believe that he would say that on occasion, when you serve your child a meal, think about the children in the world that don't always have that fortune. One mustn't need to feel guilt in order to feel empathy.
 
Re: Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

THE ABC has questioned whether parents should read to their children before bedtime, claiming it could give your kids an “unfair advantage” over less fortunate children.
“Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” asks a story on the ABC’s website.
“Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?”
The story was followed by a broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National that also tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.
“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.
Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”
Contacted by The Daily Telegraph, Gelonesi said the bedtime stories angle was highlighted by the ABC “as a way of getting attention”.
Asked if it might be just as easy to level the playing field by encouraging other parents to read bedtime stories, Gelonesi said: “We didn’t discuss that.”
Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.
“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.Professor Frank Oberklaid, from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute said he was bewildered by the idea.
“It’s one of the more bizarre things I’ve heard,” he said. “We should be bringing all kids up to the next level.”

The amazing thing is the link to the ABC story is in your post, and yet you have clearly not read it. Why do you insist on letting others do your thinking for you? Hint: here is a quote from the story:

You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.

The whole thing is basically two philosophers looking at what they think of as difficult concepts and tradeoffs, you know, philosophically. They do not in any way seem to be advocating policy or anything like that, just looking at the effects of children of family activities.
 
Re: Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

So let me get this straight.

Good parents who take the time to read to their kids when they go to bed should stop, so the lazy, shiftless parents who don't bother, won't have disadvantaged children?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

It costs nothing to read to your child. You don't even have to buy books. Check them out at the library. Oh, but wait - gosh. Taking your kids to the library probably causes a disadvantage to those kids whose parents are too lazy to do even that.

Man, do I hate this "everybody gets a trophy" society that we've evolved into.
 
Nope, it very very plain that YOU are.

Again...a closed mind cannot be pried open from the outside. You have accepted what you've been fed.

Im not in denial. Im aware because I observe, living in California weve known about much of the crap the left is pushing federally a decade prior. And this after it failing in the state. Books/articles/new reports/research etc. are helpful as well.

Beyond that there is substantial evidence of the failures of leftism throughout the world-the map isn't the territory, and yet you guys remain on the same course.
 
Those on the left dont have the nerve to come out and say it, but its a tenet of leftism. Make everyone "equal" by cutting down anyone who does better.

Oh, for Christ's sake.
 
Re: Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

So let me get this straight.

Good parents who take the time to read to their kids when they go to bed should stop, so the lazy, shiftless parents who don't bother, won't have disadvantaged children?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

It costs nothing to read to your child. You don't even have to buy books. Check them out at the library. Oh, but wait - gosh. Taking your kids to the library probably causes a disadvantage to those kids whose parents are too lazy to do even that.

Man, do I hate this "everybody gets a trophy" society that we've evolved into.

Not surprisingly, that is not at all what the people are saying. In fact they say the opposite. Really easy to find these things out just by reading the actual source.
 
I think the article has a point. It should all be "equal". I think we should send someone to the houses of the lazy people to read their accidental offspring every night and even maybe bring them a Michelle designed dinner. If a neglected child is hit by a car because his parents weren't watching him we should get a kid that has parents that care and push their kid out in front of a car. Only fair, right? I mean, if we don't care enough to push that kid out in front of a car then who will take care of the neglected child? It is never the parent's fault. We can NEVER blame a parent for not taking responsibility. The question is always, "Who can we blame?"

Stupid article deserved a stupid answer.
 
Im not in denial. Im aware because I observe, living in California weve known about much of the crap the left is pushing federally a decade prior. And this after it failing in the state. Books/articles/new reports/research etc. are helpful as well.

Beyond that there is substantial evidence of the failures of leftism throughout the world-the map isn't the territory, and yet you guys remain on the same course.

Nope, it very very plain that YOU are.

Again...a closed mind cannot be pried open from the outside. You have accepted what you've been fed.
......
 
Higher min wage, more jobs

If you employ another house cleaner on a $20 an hour 40 hour a week wage we would already be on our way to a better world.
 
Number one would be a living wage so they can work 40 hours and be home without too much financial stress. Otherwise I would imagine the list could include any number of things.

How many cleaning ladies do you employ full time at $20 an hour. If you would do that for a girl, she could go home and read to her children.
 
If you employ another house cleaner on a $20 an hour 40 hour a week wage we would already be on our way to a better world.
I don't have a house cleaner.

And I make less than 20 an hour myself, and I'm doing a quite technical job, supporting/monitoring multiple computer systems.
 
How many cleaning ladies do you employ full time at $20 an hour. If you would do that for a girl, she could go home and read to her children.

Yes I would.
 
What really kills me are the same nimrods wailing that you can't force democracy on a country that doesn't want it are trying desperately to force socialism on America, a country built both culturally and physically with a reverence for the individual.

Only leftists could come up with this premise (its unfair!), and as we know the lefty solution is to make everyone "equal" by busting them down to the most disadvantaged student-cause thats fair n stuff.

If you read the actual original article it was Plato's idea in breaking up the family and Aristotle who disagreed the premise. These were ancient philosophers rather than modern left / right politicians in the society that gave us democracy. It would also have been the times where different Greek republics were famed for bringing their kids (nee Soldiers) and citizens up differently.

The article is about two modern philosophers debating the original (2000+ year old idea / argument)
 
If you read the actual original article it was Plato's idea in breaking up the family and Aristotle who disagreed the premise. These were ancient philosophers rather than modern left / right politicians in the society that gave us democracy. It would also have been the times where different Greek republics were famed for bringing their kids (nee Soldiers) and citizens up differently.

The article is about two modern philosophers debating the original (2000+ year old idea / argument)

220px-The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies_(volume_one).jpg
 
I don't have a house cleaner.

And I make less than 20 an hour myself, and I'm doing a quite technical job, supporting/monitoring multiple computer systems.

Who employs someone to clean their house 40 hrs a week? Where are they living, a 60,000 sq foot pig sty? People usually have a maid come in once a week or every two weeks for a few hours. Unless they are very wealthy...even if they are hiring illegals.

Not the most well-thought out idea that was proposed there. :doh

Btw, it sounds like you are underpaid.
 
If reading bedtime stories is advantageous, then what is stopping other parents from reading stories to their children too?

Why be pulled down to a disadvantaged group when the disadvantaged group could be pulled up to the advantaged group.

Cost of stories should not be an issue. They can find them in the internet for instance.
 
The federal govt will have cameras in your children's bedrooms to make sure you're not reading them any books. In fact they'll hire their own professional readers to send the reading of stories to the children right into their bedrooms via TV. Every child should be read to by a govt reader. :roll: Its only fair, and think of the children.
 
About Adam Swift:

Adam Swift (born 1961) is a British political philosopher and sociologist who promotes liberal egalitarianism. He has published books on communitarianism, on the philosophical aspects of school choice, and on social justice, as well as an extremely successful introduction to contemporary political theory which has been translated into several languages. Adam Swift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I don't have a house cleaner.

And I make less than 20 an hour myself, and I'm doing a quite technical job, supporting/monitoring multiple computer systems.

You see. You don't do it either. Why should others?
 
Back
Top Bottom