So, is this child abuse or something else?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:04 pm

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:17 pm

I thought that was pretty humourous.

Even though the intention was mature, she was still allowed to wear her own outfit, and parade in front of the camera.

I'm sure she got a kick out of it.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:30 pm

She's old enough to learn a few lines, and kids love to act anyway - plus they have her in a wig that disguises her face well enough that no one will recognize her in person.

Obviously the script and blocking were written and directed by an adult (and I found it amusing from the comments below that so many people thought those were her original words), but if it was something she enjoyed doing, then it was a good interactive experience with a thinking adult. If she was forced into it, then it would be bad.

She didn't look really cooperative in a couple of the splices, but for the most part, she didn't look like she minded doing this. You can't get a kid that young to act at all unless they want to, so I'm guessing there was nothing wrong with it.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:41 pm

I have mixed feelings about it. She was certainly a good little actress, but I'm leaning a bit towards child exploitation, personally. I wonder what one would think if it had been a Xian child railing against evolution or humanism or whatever. I wonder if we wouldn't pull out the "brainwashing" stick and whack away with it. I wonder if it isn't really al that different from the Jesus Camp kind of bullshit.

Aside from that I thought it was entertaining as hell and I agreed with almost every word :)

[edit: it's probably needless to say what Bill O'Reilly thought of it. "Call the authorities! Report this insidious abuse!"]

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:54 pm

Kids are told one thing or another as part of their acculturation, and most will believe as they are told, and others will play along. Maybe teaching this to a kid is one form of brainwashing, as teaching a kid that there is a grey-bearded Father who made everything and who will greet us when we die is another form of brainwashing, but it is our place as individuals to decide later if what we were taught as children was accurate or not - and the teenage years seem to be meant for challenging everything that was taught. Others decide things on their own earlier, some later... and a lot of the mindless masses (those who are easily hypnotized) never really deeply decide anything at all regarding beliefs.

edit - clarity

BMcGilly07 · Post by **BMcGilly07** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:56 pm

Dan,

Grown-ups are mostly all exploited children. If you see the lost sheeple about you as the children they remain, how can you hold anger with them? How can you exploit them further, into ideas of servitude, love, patriotism and on down the line.

As to the film industry, I have always wondered if scenes involving children and some or other form of "vulgarity" are spliced together or if they wear ear-plugs or whatnot. Or are their parent's content with scolding them not to do as older actors do whilst receiving the check behind their backs. I suppose it's not a far departure from the typical "do as I say not as I do" school of child-rearing.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:46 am

reply:
o rly?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:04 am

Yeah, I saw O'Reilly's reply. It was to be expected. I guess to him the truth is "vile".

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:26 am

Bill O'Reilly was childishly retaliating, and he and Wendy Murphy delivered a bad blow to making real emotional child abuse (which is far worse than physical child abuse) proscecutable.

If they can call that child abuse, they can call anything child abuse.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:38 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Yeah, I saw O'Reilly's reply. It was to be expected. I guess to him the truth is "vile".

I find myself incapable of getting through the first segment with the lady ranting about "this is absolutely child abuse!" I mean, she goes off on some ridiculous "what if someone wants to get this child for what she said online" thing... in doing so admitting that Christians are so evil and vile they would want to kill a child for speaking out against them.

Finally... truth from the O'Reilly camp?