Re: Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc

[Guest guest]

What a vicious little brat. They'd better keep an eye on this one since he has the makings of a serial killer. I wonder:

1) Why it took the zoo officials half an hour to catch on to what the kid was doing? I mean, they had it recorded on film. Wasn't anyone watching the security cameras?

2) What the heck were the parents doing? Either their didn't realize he was gone, for half and hour, of they thought his being in the crocodile pen was ok, and killing rare animals was cool.

Those parents should indeed be sued and made to cover the cost of getting new animals, plus some, at the very least.

In a message dated 10/3/2008 10:20:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/3/2008 10:20:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

no_reply writes:

" Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc "

Where was mommy? Where was daddy? Thanks goodness the parents are going

to be sued. Let's hope the authorities take away this child.

Considering that he could have been eaten by the croc, they ought to be

charged with child-endangerment.

The child needs a psych evaluation.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

very judgemental ppl here.

Its a small child. He knows that crocs eat animals. He has seen Steve Irwin going in croc pens with babies and small children and he feeds crocs. He is at Steve Irwin's zoo. He knows it is a good thing for people to feed animals. He gets small animals for the croc and feeds it. He feels like a good person.

Parents - I had an adventurous, escape artist child. I was an attentive parent but she was fast. When she was a toddler, I had her on a harness because I was so afraid of her getting into traffic. I got so much flak from passers by who had no idea of the circumstances that I dreaded going out. By 7, you cannot restrain a child like that but there is no way to stop them taking off if the spirit of adventure calls. A zoo is a large place and half an hour is nothing when trying to search such a huge area. The parents are most likely to be devastated at what the child has done but we DONT KNOW. So instead of feeling smug and lashing criticism, maybe withhold judgement and feel compassion.

Re: Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc

What a vicious little brat. They'd better keep an eye on this one since he has the makings of a serial killer. I wonder:

1) Why it took the zoo officials half an hour to catch on to what the kid was doing? I mean, they had it recorded on film. Wasn't anyone watching the security cameras?

2) What the heck were the parents doing? Either their didn't realize he was gone, for half and hour, of they thought his being in the crocodile pen was ok, and killing rare animals was cool.

Those parents should indeed be sued and made to cover the cost of getting new animals, plus some, at the very least.

In a message dated 10/3/2008 10:20:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Australian boy wreaks zoo havoc while feeding croc

Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

McCain or Obama? Stay updated on coverage of the Presidential race while you browse - Download Now!

[Guest guest]

"Parents - I had an adventurous, escape artist child. I was an attentive parent but she was fast. When she was a toddler, I had her on a harness because I was so afraid of her getting into traffic. I got so much flak from passers by who had no idea of the circumstances that I dreaded going out. "We had my sister on a harness because she behaved similarly, and my mother and dad also got flack for it. " By 7, you cannot restrain a child like that but there is no way to stop them taking off if the spirit of adventure calls."I disagree. Unless the child has some sort of mental disorder, disability, or difference that causes such behavior, poor discipline is the reason these kids act the way they do. I've studied this extensively in psychology courses. This is NOT to say that children who behave this way ought to be punished more, it means parents are using inappropriate discipline. Kids who barrel off at each opportunity MAY be self-determined because their parents are over-protective. Conversely, their parents may be overly permissive. "A zoo is a large place and half an hour is nothing when trying to search such a huge area. The parents are most likely to be devastated at what the child has done but we DONT KNOW. So instead of feeling smug and lashing criticism, maybe withhold judgement and feel compassion."Sorry, but I feel no compassion for them. I personally only knew of one kid who was cruel to animals in this fashion, and he developed schizophrenia and was admitted to a psychiatric institution. Most kids of that age cry when they see animals being fed to other animals and they try to SAVE animals from deaths like that.Let's try and think carefully of how methodical this kid was. It was not like the rare and exotic "food" this kid was feeding the croc was available at vending stands. He had to seek out these creatures and bring them to the pen and feed the croc. Certain children are very capable of this level of thinking. In third grade, I tested as being in the tenth grade in most subjects on national testing, and was consistently functioning above 90% of my classmates. I was reading by kindergarten, typing by kindergarten, illustrating by first grade. I am now a published author and have sold many prints, art cards, and record covers. This kid is demonic in his behavior and it is doubtful the parents could not see this unless the child has been deceiving them for all this time. Being judgmental does not enter into it. Most of us here were at LEAST as intelligent as that child when we were that age, and we would never have thought of being cruel to animals. Administrator

[Guest guest]

Naturally where one lives plays a role in how children will feel

about and relate to animals.

I am sure kids growing up on a farm have no illusions about what

happens to the steer their parents are raising, and I have witnessed

a pig being slaughtered on my uncle's farm in the southern US. Once a

year all those aunts and uncles and cousins would get together and

kill one pig and sometimes one steer in addition to the pig and split

everything up amongst themselves. The kids would participate in this.

As far as that is concerned, it is representative of the circle of

life and par for the course.

It was hard for me to watch naturally. I was just a city kid.

I also know they used to have stray cats running around their barns

and silos to eat the field mice, and they didn't think twice if they

accidentally ran over a cat with a tractor wheel....but they didn't

delight in it either.

Then you have my uncles up north of me who are all hunters, and they

taught their kids to hunt fairly early on. I suppose it is fair to

say that most of my male cousins up that way knew how to gut a deer

by twelve years of age.

Yet I still maintain that the methodical way in which this 7 year old

killed these animals was eerie.

That I brought in credentials of a sort was not to one-up you, but it

was to indicate that I have some experience with this sort of thing.

I'm not sure how long you have been lurking or how long you have been

a member here, but if you have been a close reader, you'd know my

resume is fairly extensive. I feel my opinion qualified, but I will

concede that I have never been to Australia and so do not know for

sure what sort of background this child might have had or what sort

of morals he might have ben infused with.

Administrator

" I am fairly passionate about this topic and it probably relates to a

childhood in the veldt of South Africa. A common pastime for local

African children was to set traps for a variety of small alligator.

As alligators take live food, the children used live chickens in

their traps. Actually I never saw a chicken die for the cause of

capturing alligators but obviously the children were prepared for

this to happen. The children tried to get to the alligator before it

got to the chook or the parents would have been asking questions

about missing hens. None of those children or the other white

children on the farm (who joined them whenever we could get away from

our mothers or nannies) have grown up psychotic as far as I know.

The thought that feeding chickens to alligators might be considered

cruel never crossed my mind. I knew that alligators ate chickens

whenever they could. I also knew that chickens were alligator prey

and that I might be good alligator prey too and that was the state of

the world. No right and wrong came into it although I knew that

messing with alligators was wrong as my mother did not want them to

take me. Actually, not providing live prey for crocodiles is cruel,

as is keeping them in small enclosures for human entertainment. "

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... very judgemental ppl here ...

<snip> ... "

One must always exercise judgement in life which means that all

people are judgmental which is NOT a bad thing, gprobertson. Being

judgmental is what helps people determine what is right and wrong and

whether they wish to do what is right or what is wrong.

You're judgmental towards people here by stating that you believe we

are judgmental. You posted this as if to say it's a bad thing to be

judgmental when it is most definitely not.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Its a small child. He knows that

crocs eat animals ... <snip> ... "

Small children know right from wrong.

Small children know that adults are in charge of animals in a zoo,

not small children.

Small children also know -- at the age of the small child in

question -- that visitors are NOT allowed to feed the animals unless

otherwise directed by ADULT staff members.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... He has seen Steve Irwin going in

croc pens with babies and small children and he feeds crocs. He is at

Steve Irwin's zoo ... <snip> ... "

If the small child in question does, indeed, know that Steve Irwin

went into croc pens with babies and small children (Irwin's own

children), then it was up to the small child's parents to explain to

the small child -- until the small child understood what was being

explained to him -- WHY doing so was irresponsible on Steve Irwin's

part.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... He knows it is a good thing for

people to feed animals ... <snip> ... "

You are assuming that the small child knows it is a good thing for

people to feed animals. He could just as easily read the signs in

all zoos around the world that state clearly that animals are NOT to

be fed by visitors.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... He gets small animals for the

croc and feeds it. He feels like a good person ... <snip> ... "

You are stating personal opinions that are not supported by the facts

in evidence, gprobertson. You are assuming the child feels like a

good person.

The story states the fact that the 7-year-old broke into the outback

zoo. Broke into.

A child of 7 would know that entry into a zoo is by the entry gate --

whether a fee is charged is immaterial -- and he would know that

breaking into any property is NOT a good thing.

The child KNOWS he is being sneaky by BREAKING INTO a property ergo

he is NOT being a good person.

The security cameras showed the SMILING YOUNGSTER bludgeoning to

death a small blue tongue lizard and two more thorny devils over the

course of 30 minutes.

A child of 7 would know that killing animals inhumanely -- as

indicated in the use of the word " bludgeoning " -- is NOT a good

thing. The child, however, obviously ENJOYS the torture he is

visiting upon these small animals that cannot get away from him.

The child KNOWS he is NOT being a good person.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Parents - I had an adventurous,

escape artist child. I was an attentive parent but she was fast ...

<snip> ... "

One can hardly compare a vigilant parent to one who does not notice a

child missing for at least 45 minutes -- allowing for a minimal

number of minutes for the child to get to the zoo and break in and

then to go on a 30 minute killing spree.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... When she was a toddler, I had

her on a harness because I was so afraid of her getting into

traffic. I got so much flak from passers by who had no idea of the

circumstances that I dreaded going out ... <snip> ... "

Why would you dread going out since you stated you knew that a

harness was required in order to keep your child safe from her

personal choices?

I had an extremely active, fast, impulsive child who was also on a

harness when we went out in public. I never dreaded going out in

public with him because of what others might think or say or do.

In fact, I had the police called on me more than a few times

by 'helpful people' who were clueless about the circumstances that

required the use of a harness and each time, I calmly explained the

situation to the police when they arrived.

I even wrote an Op Ed piece for the local newspaper about the harness

situation to better educate people.

But not once did I dread going out in public with my child.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... By 7, you cannot restrain a

child like that but there is no way to stop them taking off if the

spirit of adventure calls ... <snip> ... "

That's the problem with many of today's parents. They abdicate their

responsibilities as a parent and refuse to appropriately discipline

their children when the 'spirit of adventure' takes him or her beyond

the acceptable parameters of behaviour as established by the parent

and/or society.

By 7, a child who has been raised by an attentive, involved and

astute parent knows what is right from what is wrong. And a parent

of an impulsive child is well aware of the triggers and lures that

set off the 'spirit of adventure' in their child and takes

appropriate action to reduce the stimulus that drives the child to

embark upon the adventure without parental approval in the first

place.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... A zoo is a large place and half

an hour is nothing when trying to search such a huge area ...

<snip> ... "

The family was not visiting the zoo when the 7 year old was overcome

with the 'spirit of adventure' and disappeared. The child started

his adventure from a point outside the zoo since the story stated

clearly that the child BROKE INTO the zoo.

An astute and attentive parent knows where their 7 year old child is

at the time of morning when this child BROKE INTO the zoo.

The Reptile Centre is open from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM daily. The child

brok into the zoo prior to 9:00 AM since he was on a 30 minute

rampage which surely would have been seen by zoo visitors if the zoo

was open at the time of the rampage.

The child would then have disappeared from parental control outside

the zoo in the quarter hour leading up to 9:00 AM.

That speaks loudly to poor parenting techniques moreso than the

child's alleged 'spirit of adventure.'

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... The parents are most likely to

be devastated at what the child has done but we DONT KNOW ...

<snip> ... "

There is no evidence as to how the parents feel about the situation.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... So instead of feeling smug and

lashing criticism, maybe withhold judgement and feel compassion ...

<snip> ... "

You are directing others to coddle those parents who refuse to take

their parenting responsibilities and duties seriously?

One of the biggest reasons we have so many children acting in the way

this 7-year-old acted is because parents are 'afraid' to parent

and 'dread' hearing 'bad things' about them as parents and 'dread'

hearing 'bad things' about their children.

Those sorts of parents worry more about being their child's " friend "

and shirk the title of " parent " because it means that shouldering the

title of " parent " will mean they have to relinquish the title

of " friend. "

News Alert, gprobertson ... good parents are not their child's

friend. Good parents are friendly when needed and disciplinarians

when needed. They mentor and guide their children so they can grow

into responsible, tax-paying adults rather than criminals.

Too man people have a sense of entitlement that negates their own

complicity in negative behaviours and worst case scenarios.

Raven

[Guest guest]

wrote: " What I think it more telling is that he also fed a

number of live animals to the crocodiles. A total of 13 animals in all

were killed: about half directly by the boy, the other half by being

eaten alive. From what I have read, he beat the first ones to death,

the fed the others alive. If that really was the case, I would like to

know why the change. Perhaps he liked seeing them try to escape? "

I agree, .

The bottom line still is this: The boy KNEW he was NOT being a GOOD

person. It is a ridiculous statement to put forth that the child would

have done all of this because he mistakenly thought he was being a GOOD

person. He was most assuredly aware of the fact that what he was doing

was WRONG.

Raven

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " I have worked with literally thousands of young

children and being a good person has not been a prime motivating

factor in their behaviour ... <snip> ... "

You were the first person to post about " being a good person " as part

of the motivation for acting as the 7 year old acted. Those who

addressed your suggestion of " being a good person " were not claiming

any prime motivating factors.

Perhaps you should explain why you felt it necessary to even bring up

the " being a good person " comment in the first place, gprobertson.

And just because you have worked with literally -- but not actually --

thousands of young children does not necessarily mean that you are

in a position to assert that your take on the situation is the

correct one.

Your use of the word " literally " is hyperbole, pure and simple, and

is intended to gain emphasis for your claim regarding the young

children with whom you claimed to have worked or with whom you claim

to currently working.

You will find that those with AS prefer to make factual claims backed

with facts that can be researched and confirmed rather than

hyperbolic claims that are meant to imply what may not be factual at

all.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Staying out of trouble is a

factor for the timid but adventurous kids just go for it ...

<snip> ... "

And engaged parents make it their business to be aware of their

children's personalities, impulsivity, creativity, et al in order to

guide and mentor those children appropriately.

Staying out of trouble is not a factor for the timid. Staying out of

trouble is due to appropriate parenting.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am wondering why nobody

complains that the zoo keepers kill animals to feed to the crocs ...

<snip> ... "

The employees of the zoo are not the focus of the news article or the

discussion nor is how the animals are fed.

Rather than attempt to compare apples and oranges, gprobertson, focus

on the fact that the 7-year-old child acted inappropriately and that

the parents of this 7-year-old child were remiss in their duties at

the time of the incident.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Is it different because the child

was 7? ... <snip> ... "

The 7-year-old was not in the employ of the zoo and therefore one

cannot compare what the child did to what zoo employees may or may

not do.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... And then attributing behaviours

of which we have no knowledge eg " Perhaps he liked seeing them try to

escape? " seems to say more about the writer and the way he/she thinks

than it does about the child. ... <snip> ... "

One could just as easily point out that supporting ineffective and

inappropriate parenting, and making illogical arguments in favour of

the child's behaviour, speaks far more about gprobertson's personal

and professional belief system than about the individuals she

attempts to discredit.

Raven

[Guest guest]

" I have worked with literally thousands of young children and being a

good person has not been a prime motivating factor in their behaviour.

Staying out of trouble is a factor for the timid but adventurous kids

just go for it. "

I suppose it depends on the individual child. I know that I was

motivated by goodness, probably because of the morals and ethics

instilled in me by my parents. I HAVE found that parents who fail to

instill morals and ethics in their children produce children such as

the kind we see in the news story.

I also know that " free thinking " parents who do not openly state their

moral and ethical convictions and who allow their own children to

conceptualize their own morals and ethics typically produce morally

directionless and ambiguous children.

That is not to say that children ought to adopt their parents' morals

and ethics. But it is essential to see what morals and ethics actually

ARE and to see others stand fast to their moral and ethical

convictions.

But excluding the " goodness " factor...

My observations and my memories tell me that those kids who were cruel

to animals seem to be deliberately so.

-Most children know that an independently moving object is living,

unless it has batteries.

-Most children know that if they have experienced pain, other people

can experience pain, and they should be able to extrapolate that

animals feel pain.

-Aside from this, most children will have cultivated a healthy sense of

empathy and sympathy for other living beings by the age of seven.

In regards to this specific instance:

-A closed door is a close door. How many doors did this child have to

open to do what he did?

-The child should have been able to read by this time. How

many " Danger " and " No visitors beyond this point " signs did he pass?

-This child knew how to kill animals by beating them to death. Whence

came that knowledge? One certainly doesm't see it on National

Geographic.

This child was indeed quite inventive and enterprising, and I find it

hard to believe that there was total vacancy in the portion of his

brain that deals with entering sealed off areas or reading signs.

There were a number of things this child did that vacated common and

understood social rules, and even if the rules were not commonly

understood by this chiild, they were posted for the child to see.

Aside from all of this, the guilt falls squarely on the parents.

How could they not notice he was missing in the first place?

Further, was he giving hints about what he was planning on doing? In

which case, why did they not keep an eye out for him?

Finally, if he did NOT tell them what he was planning on doing, why did

he not tell them? One can conclude that he must have had an idea that

what he was doing was wrong, and so he went about his business with the

express purpose of not getting caught.

In summary: There is something extremely wrong with this child, and the

parents.

As for Steve Irwin setting an example for this kid, I have written

letters to get the man off the air. Thank goodness a stingray finally

got him. It is what he deserved. Unfortunately, as we can see from this

incident, his legacy lives on in the form of this child's lunacy we are

discussing.

" I am wondering why nobody complains that the zoo keepers kill animals

to feed to the crocs. "

Well, I do not intend to roll out the resume here, but I have

considerable knowledge of zoology. I could go into a list of the diet

of crocodiles, but will refrain from that simply because it is

irrelevant. We are not talking about zookeepers feeding a croc its

ordinary and appropriate (however grotesque) diet. We are talking about

a boy who is bludgeoning animals to death (indicating that he is aware

of how to kill a living being, I might add) and throwing these animals

into the croc pen whether or not they are part of the croc's diet. In

fact, for all this child knows, he could have been poisoning the

animal.

The child was not " imitating " anything, but engaging in psychologically

disturbed criminal behavior.

I truly believe that it is society's failure to recognize such behavior

as being disturbed and criminal that causes society to allow such

behaviors to go untreated and unpunished.

" Is it different because the child was 7? "

It is different because one would not expect a child to be in

possession of such knowledge in the firgst place, nor would one expect

a child to carry out such a deed even if one conceptualized it.

" And then attributing behaviours of which we have no knowledge

eg " Perhaps he liked seeing them try to escape? " seems to say more

about the writer and the way he/she thinks than it does about the

child. "

At the very least it would indicate a morbid interest in torture.

Personally, I don't know what your qualifications are and I don't

particularly care. They don't trump common sense. Nor do they trump

research in regard to these types of situations.

That you have worked with thousands of children does not mean that you

understand them or that you've actually made a significant difference

in their lives.

Yours truly appeared in a hospital, battled the hospital staff to have

a restrained and drugged autistic moved to a special psychiatric

facility to have the types, quantities, and dosages of his meds

readjusted. It was the boy's mother's assertion that the over-

medication in addition to poor treatment by doctors and by school staff

and administration was responsible for his suicidal behavior and I

agreed with her.

The doctors collaborated in discussion on his condition and stood

fast...until I stood up with a suit and tie and got him moved. The

upshot was that his mother and I were completely right and the doctors,

with all their extensive experience, medical training, and history with

other patients, were just plain wrong.

The boy was indeed over-medicated, and school staff were instructed how

to appropriately manage the child. They failed in that task, so we

moved him to a new school.

The result is that we initially had a suicidal autistic sixth grader

who was operating at the second grade level across the board now in

eight grade receiving awards for improved school work, and he well

should considering he is performing at or above grade level in all

areas.

Common sense can tell you what you need to know about the croc-feeding

kid. And even if a little postulation and theorizing is something a

person cannot allow themselves to do, there are enough studies out

there, particularly on the AAP and AMA websites that would characterize

this 7 year old boy's behavior as being abnormal.

I stand by my opinion that this child's parents be held accountable,

and I do believe this child should undergo a full psychological workup

as well.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Amen and amen, Raven!

" ...News Alert, gprobertson ... good parents are not their child's

friend. Good parents are friendly when needed and disciplinarians

when needed. They mentor and guide their children so they can grow

into responsible, tax-paying adults rather than criminals.

Too man people have a sense of entitlement that negates their own

complicity in negative behaviours and worst case scenarios. "

[Guest guest]

" I have worked with literally thousands of young children and being a

good person has not been a prime motivating factor in their

behaviour. "

Perhaps not, but I find this difficult to believe. In this day and

age, a major fault of teachers, according to recent studies, has been

that they focus on self-esteem building in their charges rather than

learning. Thus all children taught under these methods tend to " feel

good " and focus on continuing to " look good " to other people.

The problem with this is that when you tell children constantly that

they are " good " they fail to explore what " good " is or develop

themselves into what " good " actually is.

Fortunately, new studies have come out saying that this the primary

reason that children taught under the so called " self esteem

movement " grow up to fail miserably in comparrison with their peers.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/taking-the-gifted-down/

MURRAY: Taking the gifted down

" Over the last several years, the self-esteem movement has been

debunked in the technical literature. The landmark change in

scholarly opinion occurred in 2003, when a review of the 15,000

studies that had been written on the relationship of self-esteem to

the development of children concluded that improving self-esteem does

not raise grades, career achievement, or have any other positive

effect. "

We can see then, that people bent on supporting self esteem in this

manner are generally hamstringing most children's ability to grow up

to be human beings with ambitions, and more likely than not, human

beings with morals.

Too often, these children grow up to be empty vessels without any

true ability to achieve anything or think for themselves. I am

wondering if this 7 year old falls into that category of being told

that he is good without realizing that he has been behaving in an

evil fashion.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

mjpeanut26 wrote: " Amen and amen, Raven! "

Thank you, .

Raven

[Guest guest]

" Re judgemental. It is important to make judgements in life. A fair

judgement in this case would be to think that was a terrible thing to

happen; to wonder what motivated a small person to do this and to

hope that he was motivated by curiosity rather than by more serious

concerns. However he does live in Alice Springs, a town with

significant social problems due to culture clash and extreme

poverty. It is not certain that he would have been taught middle

class values or that his parents would have the capacity to supervise

him closely. "

You are new here so you don't know, but Raven is North American

Aboriginal. Currently she lives in public housing.

It's judgemental for you to think that just because she comes from a

different culture and lives in public housing that she would not have

been taught middle class values.

" Being judgemental is to decide that his parents were negligent and

to decide that he is a potential murderer. "

Mmm...

Being judgemental is to look at the facts and determine what happened

and form a theory as to why.

" My job is an education consultant for children with high needs. In

this case, I would suggest that he come to the zoo two or 3 times a

week as part of an alternative school program and teach him to care

for animals. I would also work with him at school preparing a

presentation for other children about his work. "

You'd be endangering the animals then. He needs to be psychologically

and psychiatrically evaluated first to find out whether or not such

treatment would work. Chances are in won't, and you'd be wasting your

time.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am very excited for you that

you are such a superior person in terms of intelligence. I wont go

into a competition to see who is the smartest because I don't

normally try to force my opinion as correct by beating ppl over the

head with qualifications and awards etc. In this case, I am annoyed

that it appears to be considered to be relevant to the discussion ...

<snip> ... "

The members of this group know the qualifications of those who have

shared them (since others have also shared their qualifications).

You shared yours as well so this snide commentary on another member

sharing their credentials is very non-AS in its conception and in its

delivery.

The only reason those credentials were listed is because YOU made it

germane to the discussion with your commentaries.

Additionally, the sarcasm with which you preceeded your comments are

insulting. You have not been treated in this way by members of this

group and yet you feel justified posting rudely to members of the

membership.

Perhaps if you were more direct and less witty with you insults, this

discussion could yield more involved and deeper conversation.

Raven

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " It is not certain that he would have been?taught middle

class values or that his parents would have the capacity to supervise him

closely.? "

Teaching one's child that it's bad to break into property that is not your own

and that it is bad to kill animals are NOT middle class values; they are basic,

common, consideration that all people, regardless of social class, should be--

and are-- taught. That you would think they are values particular to the middle

class is ridiculous.

And as for his parents having the capacity to supervise him closely? If they

cannot fulfill this basic responsibility of parenthood, then they shouldn't have

ever bred in the first place; and, moreover, their seven-year-old and any other

children need to be taken from them immediately and given to people who have the

" capacity to supervise " them.

Get a grip.

[Guest guest]

"Unfortunately when my children were growing up, I was not aware of AS

and why it was difficult for me to be in public places so anything that

added to my discomfort eg passers by verbally abusing me for something

I intended to keep my child safe caused me to dread public places. I

was not able to reply. In discomfort, silent am I. However, dread or

not, I still did it, so maybe I am not as pathetic as you seem to

imply. There is some merit in overriding fear."I'm noting that it appears you were afraid of criticism or overwhelmed by it. Perhaps for this reason you are reluctant to mete out criticism yourself?I believe in keeping an open mind, but it behooves us not to abandon inductive and deductive reasoning and intuition either. There are certain conclusions which can be drawn logically as opposed to speculatively. Given the published research Raven gave out, she hasn't said anything that has not already been said by someone else. There is significant research to back up her assertions and viewpoint about this boy and his parents. I will acknowledge that despite that research, her assertions and mine can still be wrong, but it is hardly likely given what is known.

"Re judgemental. It is important to make judgements in life. A fair

judgement in this case would be to think that was a terrible thing to

happen."That is not a judgment. that is merely an opinion. "to wonder what motivated a small person to do this and to hope

that he was motivated by curiosity rather than by more serious

concerns."That is a wonder and a hope. Speculation and emotional response. Not judgment. Judgment is rendering a verdict on the situation. Prejudice is rendering a verdict upon personal convictions rather than fact. "However he does live in Alice Springs, a town with

significant social problems due to culture clash and extreme

poverty." This is a fact, and therefore a correct judgment. "It is not certain that he would have been taught middle class

values or that his parents would have the capacity to supervise him

closely."THAT is prejudicial and "judgmental" (in terms of the negative connotation of the word.) I agree that people of lower socio-economic status are there for a reason. but the reason can be one of many or a combination of them:1) They have hit hard times.2) They cannot fend for themselves.3) They have been robbed or stolen from in some way and have no choice but to live in a poor area.4) Environmental conditions make the area a poor place in which to live and alternate residential areas are filled or are not available. Etc.But there is no factual or logical basis for arguing that just because someone comes from a poor area that they will be ignorant. That these lower income areas may be more crime-ridden than middle class areas may indeed be factual, but this does not mean that some people within the social demographic are not imparting morals, values and ethics to their children. Morals, and ethics tend to be class-free. VALUES may be ascribed to certain classes. You will find that there are, for example, people from all walks of like who go to church, and there they are all taught "Thou shalt not kill." So all have been given the morals. Who chooses to kill after receiving that instruction is variable. It could be a money-grubbing rich boy who wants his father's inheritance, or it could be someone from the projects trying to steal a crust of bread and shooting a store vendor when the vendor takes a baseball bat to him. In either case, murder is unacceptable. And while I will acknowledge that more crimes take place in areas of poverty, I would add that it is not because these people have received a lack of moral and ethical training. It is because these people have CHOSEN to ignore such training. And THIS is why I can opine that the parents ought to be sued for what this child has done, and the child ought to be examined. There is no feeling of superiority on my part as I make these pronouncements. I am merely stating that from the information given, it would appear that the child has engaged in disturbed behavior and the parents were negligent in their oversight of him. "Being judgemental is to decide that his parents were

negligent and to decide that he is a potential murderer."I disagree. As has been shown, the parents were negligent and there is statistical evidence to show that children who behave in such ways grow up to be murderers. my statements assume the media's reporting is unskewed and factually accurate. If I receive different data, I would willingly change my opinion. "My job is an

education consultant for children with high needs. In this case, I

would suggest that he come to the zoo two or 3 times a week as part of

an alternative school program and teach him to care for animals. I

would also work with him at school preparing a presentation for other

children about his work. "Need I say I have a background in English, education, psychology, educational psychology, anthropology, and zoology? An education consult would know that before a pedagogical course of action can be determined, the child would need to be evaluated first by trained psychologists and psychiatrists. How can you determine a course of action and rehabilitation if you do not know whether or not he has a diagnosis which warrants a specific course of action? It's irresponsible. It's irresponsible because it could be that the therapy you propose would exacerbate the condition. Alternatively, it's irresponsible because the therapy you propose would be an utter waste of time and a distraction from the type of therapy which would better benefit him. Administrator

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " Actually the child did the killing with a blank expression.?

He smiled when he fed the croc.? Interesting. Maybe he is autistic. "

THIS autistic, as well as every one of the autistics I have personal interaction

with on a weekly basis in the special needs sunday school class I am part of and

help lead, know that what that child did was WRONT, WRONG, WRONG.

How dare you justify his behaviour by dismissing it as something an autistic

would do?

He did what he did with a blank expression because he likely has sociopathic

issues. He smiled when he fed the croc because he is clearly a sadist. Perhaps

he did enjoy it, and that's why he was smiling, as pointed out; but that

is sadistic, cruel, enjoyment--not healthy, wholesome enjoyment.

And finally... your use of a period before every question mark is driving me

BONKERS. Go learn proper grammar.

[Guest guest]

" These views are all based on a very western, middle class conceptualization of

child development. "

GPon, I have acquaintances and work experiences with people of

non-western, non-middle class cultures, and none... NONE of them teach their

children that what this boy did is acceptable behavior.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " It is not certain that he would have been taught

middle class values or that his parents would have the capacity to

supervise him closely. "

responded: " Teaching one's child that it's bad to break into

property that is not your own and that it is bad to kill animals are

NOT middle class values; they are basic, common, consideration that

all people, regardless of social class, should be -- and are --

taught ... <snip> ... "

Exactly, !

Now, gprobertson would have you believe that tribal culture negates

an understanding regarding breaking into someone else's property and

that tribal culture negates an understanding regarding the sacredness

of life.

If she understood anything about Aboriginal culture, she would know

that Aboriginals absolutely understand the concept of respecting

someone else's property since Europeans are the ones who disrespected

OUR property when they landed on OUR shores and pushed us onto

reservations.

We also understand that we are the guardians of our brother and

sister animals and that we are to respect their place in the world.

Aboriginal tribal culture speaks loudly and repeatedly to the

sacredness of ALL life.

responded to gprobertson: " ... <snip> ... That you would

think they are values particular to the middle class is

ridiculous ... <snip> ... "

And it's from that sort of belief system that the roots of racism

begin to grow. How sad, hey?

responded to gprobertson: " ... <snip> ... And as for his

parents having the capacity to supervise him closely? If they

cannot fulfill this basic responsibility of parenthood, then they

shouldn't have ever bred in the first place; and, moreover, their

seven-year-old and any other children need to be taken from them

immediately and given to people who have the " capacity to supervise "

them ... <snip> ... "

Again, you are very correct, .

There are charges that can be laid against parents and guardians as

well as other adults involved in a child's life and who do not

supervise minor children closely. The charges are one of " failing to

provide the necessities of life to a minor child " and " neglect of a

minor child. "

Even the police and courts will strike down an attempted defence

of 'incapacity to supervise a child closely' where it is clear that

the parents are remiss, regardless of the reason for being remiss in

the first place.

Parenting is serious business and those who refuse to shoulder the

responsibilities demanded of parenthood should NOT embark upon or

implicate themselves in parenting situations.

Raven

Get a grip.

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... Actually the child did the killing

with a blank expression. He smiled when he fed the croc. Interesting.

Maybe he is autistic ... <snip> ... "

Have you shared that perspective with the media in your country? The

would eat it up since most of the time, when a terrible thing is

reported, the media begins to make noises about how the individual who

perpetrated the crime is " probably " autistic leading the general public

to overlook the word " probably " and jump on the word Autistic.

Yes, this is how the general public comes to mistakenly believe that

Autistics lack empathy and are violent ... because of comments

like " Maybe he is autistic ... "

For someone who claims she is an Autistic teacher who teaches

Autistics, I fear greatly for the children you teach. For someone who

claims she has taught literally THOUSANDS of children, that fear

increases exponentially because of your comment, " Maybe he is

autistic ... "

Such comments that can be attributed by an allegedly Autistic teacher

who teaches Autistics only provide 'proof to the great unwashed

masses' that Autistics cannot be trusted to do what is right, that we

are all violent and that we do not have or process emotions properly.

I am appalled at how insulting your comments towards different groups

of people are, gprobertson!

Raven

[Guest guest]

" I don't see what self esteem has to do with the discussion to date.

Actually this child is more likely to have experienced an upbringing

that promotes very low self esteem than the other way around. "

In your studying to become a teacher, have you perchance read up about

A.S Neill's Summerhill School?

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

The school was founded on the principle that students resided there

but could choose what they wanted to do and when, with no restrictions.

There have been many studies of the school, most objective, some with

axes to grind, and others with obvious loyalties to Neill himself.

According to what I read, the school offered various courses and

studies but the students were not required to attend. The school

offered no moral or ethical convictions and tried to remain unbiased

towards the moral or ethical convictions of the students. The students

themselves were in charge and could elect their own government, create

their own rules, and determine the running of the school.

A child was never taught that anything they did or anything they

accomplished was bad. It was left up to their own consciences to

determine whether or not what they were doing was good or not.

What happened to the students who graduated from this environment?

They entered into all areas of life. Some became high-powered

executives. Others taxi drivers and janitors. But no matter where they

wound up, all seemed to be happy with their chosen career paths and

lifestyles.

They did experience the usual stressors and pitfalls in life. Some

married and stayed married. Some got divorced. Some never married.

Some adhered to the law. others did not. Some used and abused drugs.

Others did not.

In short, the demographics for these kids when they became adults were

the same as the demographics of the general population with two

exceptions:

1) the adults tended to be happy in their lives and

2) All of them were faced with a moral and ethical crisis when

reintegrated back into society.

You see, when they were allowed to determine their own moral and

ethical destinies in school, they were free from all society's morals

and values except that which the children had formed on their own at

Summerhill, and the society which was formed was minimalist. Their

rules were things such as " Supper at 5, breakfast at 8. And no student

shall wake up another before 6. " that sort of thing.

When faced with a society's morals and ethics after such an extended

and isolated period without them, most of these young adults had no

idea where they fit in and except for sociopaths or people whose

diagnoses are such that they cannot understand social mores, no sector

of the population has ever experienced such confusion and

disillusionment. They were sort of like Stockholm syndrome victims or

cult members who once again move out into the " real world. "

My point is that if you are IN the world, or a segment of it that has

access to the rest of the world, you can hardly claim to be so far

removed from it as someone who actually has been removed from it.

Another way of removing people from the world is to make them feel

that they can do no wrong when in fact they are. Our educational

system these days is set up to make kids believe they are succeeding,

even as they fail. It dovetails with not teaching kids proper morals

or ethics.

If you say to a child who is failing, " I am going to give you an 'A'

for effort, " what you are doing is denying the failure and praising

the child for lack of studying (if in fact they did not study).

Kids who bully in school are often praised backhandedly. " I know you

are a good boy at heart and that you would not normally hit that other

boy, so I am not going to punish you. "

we now have a bunch of children running around who think very highly

of themselves and who do things without thought because we have never

caused them to grapple with anything that calls into question who they

are, what they feel, what they think, and what their impact is on others.

The lack of the world to realize these basic essentials is what is

contributing to the allowance and forgiveness of the behavior we have

seen this 7 year old boy engage in.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" These views are all based on a very western, middle class

conceptualization of child development. "

That's a prejudicial assumption. How do you know I come from the

middle class? As ithappens, I do

You said:

" If the child and his parents do not share that culture he is going to

have very different understandings and will need a lot of help to see

life from an alternative viewpoint. "

I disagree. It does not matter what a person's background is. Unless

one is born or dies in an enclosed space with no contact with the

outside world, they will continually be exposed to what is deemed

culturally acceptable to the majority. A failure to adapt to that

culture is indicative of a difference or diagnosis (such as AS) or a

deliberate choice.

" Actually amongst certain social groupings the notoriety he is getting

from the media is going to make him a hero. :-('

Why should that matter. Are we to assume that because he may be

idolized by some that this should incite him to further detestable

adventures?

Each situation we face each day is separate and unique. We can see

each one as an opportunity and a choice. Unless we have some

psychological impairment, we have complete control over whether or not

to take advantage or pass over the opportunity, and we have complete

control over the choices concerning that opportunity.

His peers could parade this boy through the middle of town with a

brass band playing and he will still be faced with the same way and

same choices concerning each new opportunity.

Next time he sees a chance to run away from home and start killing

animals, he can simply choose not to. As far as we know, no one had

forced him to do what he did. Unfortunately, in order to teach this

boy, someone will have to impress upon him that he ought not to do it

again and restrain him if necessary.

It's the way the world works.

If people refuse to guide this boy properly and instead put him upon a

pedestal, then I believe they deserve what they get.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" cultural differences complicate issues and nobody brings about change

effectively by force. "

It all depends on what your view of a society is and what you own

personal feelings are about culture.

If a society is defined as what the majority of a population wants,

and if order is what people want, then they establish police forces

and a military to ensure that this order is kept.

If one society decides to impose their own culture on another society,

chances are it won't work.

But if someone chooses to live within a society and somehow contravene

or subvert the establish societal code, then society is well within

its rights to preserve order by force for the sake of the continuing

existence of society.

By far, the majority of people who protest rules, regulations, and

order the most are those who feel the most imposed upon. Lots of these

people have " self-esteem " issues. They would do better to solve their

problems therapeutically, but if they don't those people are free to

do one of four things:

1) Get with the program

2) Leave

3) Try to peacefully change laws.

4) Or establish some sort of happy medium within their society.

By far, most people chose number four as the way to go. How many times

have we told our kids " Your friends may do that but in this house the

rule is______ " etc.

" It simply drives problems underground. Its not about right and

wrong. I do not know if this child's family have been part of a

tribal group, but I know from childhood in Africa that it was

essential for children to be able to catch and kill small prey without

flinching. Their play which might appear brutal to a western person

is really about survival. "

Look, I've got cousins who, as kids, used to go into the hen house and

kill a chicken and pluck it so their mom could cook it for dinner. As

I may have said in another post, they were no strangers to the annual

pig or steer slaughter, didn't bat an eye if they accidentally ran

over one of the feral cats with a tractor.

Yet I don't know that any of my cousins WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to kill

an animal or derived any particular pleasure from killing one, aside

from thinking what it might taste like at dinner. It is abnormal for a

person to delight in killing any living thing unless perhaps they feel

some triumphal feeling in fending off an attacking or particularly

repugnant animal, in which case the pleasure is not in the killing,

but the not flinching under the attack or the defense.

" In my childhood, children chopped the heads off chickens for lunch

(not me. I vomit at the smell of blood and cry when the chicken runs

without its head) but now for a child to dispatch of a hen would

often not be considered appropriate. "

I've gutted fish. It's the circle of life. But the idea of catching

fish so that I could mutilate them or have fun killing them is just a

deranged concept to me.

" I don't say that what the child did was right. I suggest that we do

not have enough information to label him a potential mass murderer. "

We cannot extrapolate that he WILL become a murderer. All we can say

is that most serial killers have engaged in such behavior as children.

" Actually the child did the killing with a blank expression. He

smiled when he fed the croc. Interesting. Maybe he is autistic. "

Doubtful. Autistics have a sense of right and wrong, and despite what

the DSM IV says, we do have both empathy and sympathy, although all

these may not be so blatantly obvious to researchers.

You will find that we cheer just as aggressively for supposed AS

people to be convicted of crimes they did as we do for non-autistics

to be convicted.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

gprobertston wrote: " um the social problems in Alice Springs were

significantly influenced by a generation of aboriginal children who

were stolen from their families and cultures by white middle class

Australians. "

um the social problems in many geographical locations in Canada were

significantly influenced by not one, not two, but multiple generations

of aboriginal children who were stolen from their families and

cultures by white middle class Canadians.

Our children -- meaning my people's children, meaning my ancestors,

meaning some of my 'next generation up' uncle and aunt and cousin type

ancestors -- learned and understood the rules and laws of the land

that was once ours and that now belonged to the white man.

It is insulting to see how poorly educated on the subject of

Aboriginals you appear to be while purporting to know so much.

Raven

[Guest guest]

gprobertson wrote: " there is no way i would mention the word autistic

in this context in public. I used that as an example in this forum

only as I would never expect an autistic forum to make a jump in logic

to think that I was implying that autistics are cruel to animals ...

<snip> ... "

There is no way that any of us in this forum of Autistic individuals

would even think of making the sort of insulting comment you made

regarding Autistics and cruelty to animals. This why we would never

be able to anticipate that an alleged fellow Autie would make such an

outrageous comment.

While this forum is private, everything on the Internet is public ergo

your mention of the word Autistic in the context in which you used it

was " in public " contrary to your anticipated objection stating the

opposite.

Raven