As I mentioned earlier, you can't compare behavior that is ok for adults and say that it's ok for children because adults do it. There are a ton of things that adults can do that children should not do.

On 2005-07-19 23:19, jimtron wrote:
Jeff:

Thanks for the reply, I think you made a good point. I agree that teasing can be really hurtful between kids. But isn't there any type of stage hypnotism that doesn't involve embarrassing people, and/or wouldn't lead to kids being teased and bullied? Is stage hypnotism always about making fun of the volunteers? Also: not all adults take kindly to being embarrassed in front of others.

"As I mentioned earlier, you can't compare behavior that is ok for adults and say that it's ok for children because adults do it. There are a ton of things that adults can do that children should not do. "

I completely agree, of course. I was just trying to determine what exactly it is that makes stage hypnosis inappropriate for kids, but appropriate for adults. I don't know very much about hypnotism; I'm trying to learn more.

On 2005-07-19 10:04, GothicBen wrote:
Lee Darrow had answered the question very well, with his list of caveats.

However, I am going to address an issue that I feel has been deliberately skirted around.

Imagine if parents find out that their children were "hypnotised".

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the public perception of hypnosis is some semi-magical skill where the hypnotists can get anyone to do their bidding. A cliche, I know, but one that is commonly held, even by well-informed individuals.

Parents could jump to conclusions and think that if you can make children dance around like chickens, then you could easily put them in a trance and sexually abuse them.

For the sake of cash, do you really want to open yourself up to accusations?

Ben

...I appreciate the civil manner in which you are replying.

On 2005-07-20 00:25, jimtron wrote:
"...I appreciate the civil manner in which you are replying."

Thanks; I try hard to be respectful and civil, even when I disagree with others.


Jeff, it sounds like you are saying it's not exactly the hypnosis itself that's a problem with kids, it's just that it will lead them to behave in a silly way that will lead other kids to ridicule them. Is that accurate? Or would you say that there is something *inherent* in hypnotizing children that is amoral? What if you were hynotizing a child in front of only his best friends and parents? In other words, if you ruled out the being made fun of part, would it still be wrong?

I think it comes down to the fact that I don't know enough about the dangers of hypnosis in general, let alone the potential impact it can have on children.

On 2005-07-13 06:41, Jordan Waller wrote:

Quote:

On 2005-07-12 15:53, joshlondon wrote: Jordan, why do you say that? (that it's appalling)

If you realy need to ask this you have serious issues.

It is just morally wrong to do this.

Children are innocent beings that do not need humiliating or being psychologicaly ****ed up in front of a crowd of all their peers. Especialy in this day and age.

It's bad enough adults later claiming to have some sort of mental problem caused by hypnosis, it would be even worse with kids.

On 2005-07-24 17:35, jimtron wrote:
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what Michael Jackson has to do with this.

On 2005-07-25 00:56, jimtron wrote:
But I'm not saying hypnotizing children is ok. I don't know if it is or not. I've been asking: what specifically is inherently wrong (if anything) with hypnotizing kids? You said it's wrong because the kids could get teased; but (I think) we agreed it wasn't the hypnosis that was directly at fault, it was that *if* a hypnotist puts the kids in embarrasing situations, then they *might* get teased by other kids. That could also happen if a child becomes a Mathlete, or participates in a spelling bee. But I don't think anyone would argue that being a Mathlete is amoral.


Of course it's not ok for MJ to sleep with children just because he thinks it's ok. I don't think you're going to get too many arguments on that point.


I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I haven't gotten too many responses: what is inherently wrong (if anything) with hypnotizing children?

Do you all agree with Jordan that hypnotizing children is humiliating and causes psychological damage? If so, please explain how that happens. And again; Lee has apparently hypnoized children with no problems, and Josh has witnessed the hypnosis of children with no problems. Does anyone have evidence that hypnotizing children is amoral, or dangerous, etc.?

thanks,

Jim

I was just saying that if someone has an opinion about anything being right or wrong, it doesn't change fact.

On 2005-07-25 03:44, hkwiles wrote:
Digressing slightly..what is so funny/entertaining about most stage hypnosis acts?
If you ask someone in a normal state to pretend to be a chicken or to be Mick
Jagger they would probably give you the same impersonation as if they were hypnotised. Is it only funny because they don't know they are doing it?

Back to the original thread..most very young kids would do what you asked them to do anyway, so why the hypnosis?

Howard

On 2005-07-18 17:52, bobser wrote:
Nice write up Drew. Well done. Do keep us informed. TV programmes have been made with much worse ideas!!!

Bobser

"In the popular imagination, a person who submits to hypnosis falls into a trance. The subject slavishly follows the hypnotist's commands, perhaps to squawk like a chicken, re-enact events from childhood or develop a lasting aversion to cigarettes. When the subject "awakens," he or she forgets everything that happened during the session.

Actually, hypnosis is not like that at all, said Steven Lynn, professor of psychology at Binghamton University, who has devoted much of his career to establishing a clear, scientific understanding of hypnotic suggestion. A person who responds well to hypnosis takes an active rather than a passive role, working in partnership with the hypnotist. "Hypnosis involves the participant thinking and imagining along with whatever is suggested, in an expectant manner," he said."

On 2005-07-14 11:26, themindreader wrote:
Hi,

I really don't see any ethical problem here at all (providing that the subjects are not literally children but teenagers).

Simon

On 2005-07-25 00:56, jimtron wrote:
But I'm not saying hypnotizing children is ok. I don't know if it is or not. I've been asking: what specifically is inherently wrong (if anything) with hypnotizing kids? You said it's wrong because the kids could get teased; but (I think) we agreed it wasn't the hypnosis that was directly at fault, it was that *if* a hypnotist puts the kids in embarrasing situations, then they *might* get teased by other kids. That could also happen if a child becomes a Mathlete, or participates in a spelling bee. But I don't think anyone would argue that being a Mathlete is amoral.

Of course it's not ok for MJ to sleep with children just because he thinks it's ok. I don't think you're going to get too many arguments on that point.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I haven't gotten too many responses: what is inherently wrong (if anything) with hypnotizing children?

Do you all agree with Jordan that hypnotizing children is humiliating and causes psychological damage? If so, please explain how that happens. And again; Lee has apparently hypnotized children with no problems, and Josh has witnessed the hypnosis of children with no problems. Does anyone have evidence that hypnotizing children is amoral, or dangerous, etc.?

thanks,

Jim

On 2005-07-25 21:49, jimtron wrote:
"I'm still wondering, is it *inherently* wrong to hypnotize a kid. In other words, let's say the parents gave permission, the hypnotist is sensitive and kind, there's no coercion, he's not ridiculing or insulting anyone, only his parents and close friends are there, etc. What is inherent in hypnosis that will humiliate and pscyhologically damage a child?"