Parenting

@Card - Call it whatever you will, the point is having rights comes with a certain expectation that those rights need to be exercised intelligently.

The fact that so many believe you have rights for your mere presence is the reason for a lot of bullshit in the world right now.

@Silasw - He won't have certain options no, but my child will have plenty of rights. They'll have to go to Church, and I may bring them along to whatever Church volunteer work my wife and I do, but to a certain point, if they want to keep their involvement to the Church to a bare minimum, cool.

They can't date same gendered partners, they can't have sex, and they can't have multiple partners. But they can still date, pick who they want to go with to the prom.

I'm curtailing not denying them their rights. Until such a time as they can now bear the burden of their own choices, in which case, they'll do as they see fit regardless of my input.

edited 5th Apr '13 7:24:45 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Some wheelchair bound people can't do work anymore. But we still let them live here even though they cannot reasonably be excepted to pay taxes.

I'd definitely dispute that Ship. We have a lot of bullshit today because long ago people decided what rights should be given to which group of people and not "everyone who should reasonably be expected to have them".

edited 5th Apr '13 7:25:01 AM by Wildcard

So you support curtailing the right of freedom of speech for people who say stupid (but not dangerous) things? What about the right to bare arms? Also you didn't answer the second part of my post, how does you kid not have obligations and duties when they have the obligations and duty to do things like go to school, tidy their room, take out the trash, attend church and more?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

The problem with your questions Silasw is that you're talking about a child, living under my roof, as if they're an adult.

I'd damn sure curtail my son's speech under my roof. I have guy friends who affectionately refer to their female friends and girlfriends as bitches. My son would only do that once. Now, once he's older, if that's the way he and his own wife (or husband) refer to each other, hey, so be it.

Another mistake you keep making is that you keep trying to equate my child's household duties to societal obligations. My daughter cleaning her room, going to school, and attending Church with us aren't some duty she's doing for some trade-off. It's not a favor or a job. These are things I expect her to do as my daughter living off the support of me and my wife. Her return for fulfilling these obligations is that she gets to live in our house and enjoy what we provide with minimal fuss.

The more she resists, the more we curtail those benefits. The more she cooperates, the more we back off and give her even more latitude.

When she's a grown woman, she's no longer being supported by us. She is now a self-sustaining member of the wider civilization. Now she is fulfilling her duties to society and in turn she reaps benefits directly from them. Now, she can keep her room however she wishes, since it'll most likely be in an apartment she pays for. She can date a woman all she likes as long as she uphold the Consititution and the laws of whatever city and state she's in.

It was an honor

Mod Hat ON

Knock of the strawmanning, Silas. Saying this:

when Starship has very clearly said no such thing is the very definition of strawmanning. You are distorting his stated position into one that you can attack more easily.

All of you, read for comprehension, please. Right now there's a lot of talking past each other going on in this thread. If it continues in this vein, I'll lock it up.

Mod Hat OFF

edited 5th Apr '13 7:45:05 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

See? Even Maddy suppresses our freedom of speech when the moment calls for it!

Note

It was an honor

@Ship: I think the problem that people have with this is at this age they have no way of not being supported by you, and yet their going to the same church you do possibly against their will.

Those were genuine questions... Starship appears to support curtailing the rights of children because they are not going to use them properly, I don't get how it's then wrong of me to ask if he supports curtailing the rights of other groups because they won't use them properly. If he doesn't then he just has to say he doesn't. Either way I'd like an answer. (Also since when was strawmaning starship a punishable offence?)

Starship, what are 'societal obligations' then? What is the long list of obligations you have that your kid doesn't, a job isn't one because you are rewarded with money for it. What are you obliged to do that your only rewarded with with rights?

How is your kid cleaning their room in exchange for food and housing not a trade off? It sounds like one to me.

Also why does the age of the person matter? Would you put the same limiters on someone else who couldn't support himself and you chose to take into your home. Say your cousin loses everything and has to start again, you let him live with you for a bit, as he's not no job does he now have his rights curtailed? If not why not?

(disclaimer: All questions in this post are real and not rhetorical.)

edited 5th Apr '13 8:17:47 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Exactly my point Card, they have no choice but to be supported by me, therefore they have no choice but to accede to my wishes. This doesn't mean I resort to that card in every situation, it just means that if there's a difference of opinion, I and my wife win.

The liberal mindset seems to think this is just so horrible, but I find it is quite reasonable.

@Silasw - I shoud've explained better. There's a difference in who is supporting whom. My child is directly supported by me, thus they are under my direction and I determine how far they exercise their free will. As adults they are now supported by the government and the various organizations they work for and are affiliated with.

Even the nature of those relationships are different. A child cannot "earn" their way into our household. There's no way they can, or should have to, work to pay the rent/mortgage, or pay the light and gas and water bills, or pay taxes, or even pay their own tuition. There's literally nothing they could do at that point to earn them.

If I'm blessed and Starship, Jr. is some sort of genius who writes a bestseller at 13, he still, for all his money, doesn't remotely have the skills or experience to handle that money responsibly just yet.

Now when he leaves and becomes an adult he's not being "supported" by the government and society. He's a contributor and earner. He works directly for all he has. He has earned the right to live his life as he so chooses.

Now, to answer your question, if a grown adult wanted to live in my house....there are certain adjustments.

If my own father wanted to move in with me, there'd be certain rules he'd either accept or he wouldn't live with me. His smoking would have to stop immediately. If, say, my father wanted to move in with me and wanted to bring his boyfriend.....I don't know I'd okay that. Same as I wouldn't allow my adult daughter to move in with us and her boyfriend, they'd have to be married first.

Other than those and a few other core rules, I'm mainly of the "live and let live" school.

It was an honor

Your child does contribute to their own upkeep actually, or at least they would if you lived in the UK, child tax credit, child support if the parents are split up. There are certain extra sources of money that one only has acess to if you have a child. So they are helping to keep the lights on.

And yes I think the fact that you get your way just because you are stronger is wrong, you should get your way because you're right. The federal goverment doesn't get to curtail the rights of the state of Gerorgia just because its a net drain on the federal goverment. Nor should a strong nation get to dictate to a small nation just because they have a bigger army (though sadly they often can and do).

With the hypothetical adult, you've said you're not sure on them bringing a same sex partner with them, but I assume that means you are okay with them having a same sex partner that they go see? Why do they get that right when they are in the same position of dependence that a child would be in? Also could I get an answer to my questions on if I was correct in thinking you are willing to curtail children's rights because they will use them wrong, and why that dosnt extent to curtailing adults right because they will use them wrong?

edited 5th Apr '13 8:56:30 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I'm sorry, but that's not how you should see your own daughter. She's not someone renting your place and in exchange fulfills certain duties. She's your daughter. It's your moral duty to provide for her, regardless if she cleans her room or does other household chores or not. Otherwise if you see her as a burden, you might as well not get involved in raising her at all.

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

Silasw, it's a bit difficult to explain, not because I don't enjoy trading ideas with you, but because I've never real come up against this idea that children are functionally the same as adults. I have no frame of reference for responding to that.

My child is born without any sense of justice, of right and wrong, of consequences, of the difference between the long view and the short. Contrary to "free range" thinking, they cannot pull this out of thin air. They must be taught. They must be trained, training means I stop certain behaviors and I encourage or compel others.

As my child shows they understand what I'm teaching them, I back off. And as they demonstrate more and more willingness to shoulder the burden of their own lives, I don't even compel or constrain them any further.

But until such a time, I don't believe in teaching them a bunch of different approaches and letting them pick one. I believe the one I follow is right, and that's the one he/she will learn. They will learn it, as I give them the confidence and training to seek out another if that one doesn't work.

I have no such obligation to a grown adult, so constraining or compelling their behavior in order to train them is outside my purview. At that point, my only concern is them not disturbing the flow of my home.

If I was down and out and I had to, just for crazy laughs here, move in with, say Gabrael, I wouldn't need to be told that my opinions on homosexuality are not to be voiced.

Germi, until you said, this I hadn't thought of how that sounded. I apologize. My daughter is a gift from God and I'd never see her as anything less. But....I cannot abide this idea that she is simply entitled to our providing for her, in the sense that; she has no obligation to obey our rules.

That thinking will produce a vacuuous human being with no sense of shared responsibility to their fellow citizens. I could never have such a woman leaving my home.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:08:35 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

I kinda agree with that. If I ever have kids-well, I have the choice whether to have them or not. They do not have the choice whether to be born. Therefore, as their parent, I have an obligation to provide certain things (food, a safe home, a place to live, education), unconditionally, as I implicitly took that burden on myself by choosing to have kids.

You chose to have them. They didn't choose to be born into your house. (There are certain rules, but I think that the fact that is your choice to have an child, and your obligation to properly care for them no matter what, is important.)

edited 5th Apr '13 9:09:55 AM by DrTentacles

Well then it sure is a good thing I came along. It's good for people to get exposure to new ideas. Also there is the basic fact that it works, the more you greet children like adults the more they will act like them, thus by the time they are actually adults they will be able to be functional ones.

Not strait way they're not. But by the time they reach around 12-13 a child can easily have all those things. Or at least a basic grasp of them.

Now that's a sitcom idea I like. Especially because I think Gab's kid would kick your ass in an argument on the morality of homosexuality.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Why would you oppose to men in a relationship moving into your house? I could understand a no-sex rule if you have children and don't want them to hear it, (as long as you were fair and did that for a hetero couple moving in) and no smoking and drinking, etc...

If you feel that your child is not ready to learn about homosexuality you could even just call them roommates, (I don't support lying to your child but if you feel it is necessary I couldn't stop you).

Also Tentacles is right with this quote. Were trying to get you to see that.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:18:53 AM by Wildcard

This is quite true Doctor, but I don't believe it is relevant to my overall point. Any person is obligated to pay tribute to whatever land, country, home, organization, whatever, they are a part of. Whether it's an Army Major obeying the orders of his superiors, a Roman citizen giving tribute to Caesar, a Catholic deferring to the Pope, or a TV Troper obeying a Mod's rules, this is a fact of life. A child is not exempt from it, they are as much, if not more, beholden to it.

For all the disdain liberals have for greedy and entitled right-wingers, I think the sense of believing one is owed something because one is owed something yields such people.

That's why you have parents who abuse their children, governments that shit on the people they promised to serve, people who care nothing of the environment we all have to share, etc.

My child will understand that just as they are entitled to certain things, they in turn are obligated to fulfill their duties to us, to their teachers, and eventually to those who they rent from, work for, and work with.

It was an honor

She is entitled that you should provide for her. That's what every parent has to do. Of course there are certain household rules that she should follow, if anything for the sake of cohabitation. However is there really any need for her to go to church? Shouldn't it be up to her? It's not essential for a child to attend religious services to be a good citizen.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:23:08 AM by germi91

"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."

@Ship: Actually I have a sense it wasn't because people feel they were entitled to something. It was because feel they should have more power and feel others shouldn't be entitled to stuff like a safe home, a clean environment etc...

I don't want to be disturbed Ship. But this honestly sounds like "if you don't like it leave." Problem is a seven year old has no where to leave too.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:27:35 AM by Wildcard

The difference is, those people have a choice on whether or not they're part of it. It may not be a good choice, but it's a choice. Until your child is 16, they can't-and never had been given-another choice.

You chose to be part of that. And you chose to have a child. You took on the responsibilities of being a parent. You made that choice. What choice does the child have in the matter?

Also, by your argument, a society can levy a 200% tax rate on anyone they want, especially because they have a choice whether to not to exist in the country or not.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:27:31 AM by DrTentacles

Yes, and a sense of responsibility is one of the defining characteristics of adulthood.

As TV Tropes has taught us, superior debate skills don't necessarily equate to being right.

Probably.

She's entitled to be cared for by her parents, and she will be. That entitlement comes with the reverse expectation she will follow our rules. There's not one without the other.

I consider it necessary, not only to be a good citizen but because I think it has implications beyond just life here on Earth. I get that's bullshit to some people, but it's the truth I believe.

It sounds bad. But many governments, business, organizations, people, armed forces, etc. say the same thing.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:30:22 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

You can use luxeries-games, television, privileges, to try to coerce a child to follow your rules.

However, anyone who thinks room, board, affection, or basic standard of living should ever be used to coerce a child is not fit to have children. There are certain obligations you take on by having a child. Those are unquestionable some of them. And as you have the choice whether to have a child or not, and the child does not have a choice whether or not to be born to you, it is your responsibility, and yours alone to provide them unconditionally.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:30:14 AM by DrTentacles

And anyone who doesn't think a child, or anyone living under someone else's roof, has an obligation to follow the rules laid down shouldn't have any children either.

It was an honor

Really. Why?

What choice do they have?

You're saying a parent make up whatever fucking rules they want, and if the child doesn't like they, too bad, it's out on the street.

If you can't, or are unwilling to provide basic necessities, why did you have a child?

You're acting like this is some sort of contract. However, the parent chooses to sign the contract by having a child. When does the child get that choices. Hint: they don't.

edited 5th Apr '13 9:35:07 AM by DrTentacles

X8 Starship the cause of abuse thing goes both ways. Two of my friends (well one friend and one ex friend) have very controlling parents and I've seen the damage that has done to them. Likewise I've seen the other side, a close friend of mine has a mother who doesn't ever actually mother, instead she uses her danger as an emotional church and puts the responsibility of keeping her (the mother) from killing herself on the daughter.

All of these have suffered because of their parents. So please don't act like the is only one set of things that can cause parents to hurt their kids.

Edit:

[[quoteblock]]Yes, and a sense of responsibility is one of the defining characteristics of adulthood.[[/quotebck]]

And what if the kid shows that sense of responsibility at age 15? Then can they date whoever they like?

edited 5th Apr '13 9:39:47 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Let's work backwards then. Imagine you were born to someone else Ship. Imagine you still grew to love Christianity and it's message by the age of 10 but your parents were different. They were Scientology worshipers or something. Every weekend or so they'd drag you away to Scientology meeting or something. Are you as a ten year old going to accept this, are you going to accept this after you've turned 18 and not be turned off on that religion forever because it was forced on you?

Is your response really just for them to "deal with it their your parents they know what is best"? Either of those scenarios it's not an acceptable answer.