Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
For me, I just fulfilled a promise I made to my grandmother and took her on a trip to Alaska, and now I fully intend to never fly again for the rest of my life. Because for me, very little things count as intrusions of privacy and unwanted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
You probably get the right to say what your parents do about your cell phone when it's YOUR cell phone-- like, when you pay for it.
It worked for my daughter-- we let her live at home, supported her thru her college years and several boyfriends. She got herself a job, and first thing she did was buy a cell phone and sign the contract for service.

Assorted rights of privacy are probably similar- ya want privacy, move out, get a job, pay your own rent and bills. Then you can do whatever you want- it's your life, your bills, your place, your stuff. EDIT-- that worked for my daughter too. She lives 2 doors down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Assorted rights of privacy are probably similar- ya want privacy, move out, get a job, pay your own rent and bills. Then you can do whatever you want- it's your life, your bills, your place, your stuff. EDIT-- that worked for my daughter too. She lives 2 doors down.

But if you live in my house and I pay for it, your right of privacy is conditional. I don't intrude unless I feel I MUST, but I DO have the right to intrude.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Minors don't have that choice - they pretty much have to live in their parents' house, there's no "if."

The thing I'm trying to get at is a 16 year old gets a cell phone from their parent with tracking on Wednesday and now can be tracked - but on Tuesday you didn't have that ability - so did their rights change? Do we start designing more and more things to monitor our children because we can? Would parents drive around monitoring their children before gps tracking?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
You probably get the right to say what your parents do about your cell phone when it's YOUR cell phone-- like, when you pay for it.
It worked for my daughter-- we let her live at home, supported her thru her college years and several boyfriends. She got herself a job, and first thing she did was buy a cell phone and sign the contract for service.

Assorted rights of privacy are probably similar- ya want privacy, move out, get a job, pay your own rent and bills. Then you can do whatever you want- it's your life, your bills, your place, your stuff. EDIT-- that worked for my daughter too. She lives 2 doors down.

But if you live in my house and I pay for it, your right of privacy is conditional. I don't intrude unless I feel I MUST, but I DO have the right to intrude.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The Golden Rule, fellow humans, if you wouldn't want it done to YOU, you damn well shouldn't be doin it to nobody else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I call bullshit on the lot of you.

As for when youth will have privacy rights ?
(although in MY opinion they do, we just do not respect them cause we're liars and hypocrites.)
When we start considering them human beings instead of something about on the level of housepets.

And I call bullshit on y'alls arguments here, cause you go back not too many years, every argument you place here (and some you haven't, like using violence to "control" them) could have just as easily been placed against wives/women, or certain minorities.

That specifically for you married folk - consider how it'd go if you did this shit to your spouse ?

I find more and more that as a parent spies on their kid, rifles through their room, the endless breach of privacy and trust erodes any chance of ever having a positive relationship - and often what appears to be one is more stockholm syndrome than a proper healthy relationship, for if you act like a damn prison warden to your kid, do you really think that is appropriate as a parent ?
Sure, your KNEE-JERK reaction to that is gonna be hostile, and right there, AT THAT MOMENT STOP.
And ask yourself WHY ?

I bet you can't come up with any good answers.

Believe it, the notion of "i-don't-trust-you" aimed down at your kid long enough starts to look to them like "i-don't-love-you", and all MANNER of trouble is gonna blow about it - in fact what *teaches* a lot of children to feel the NEED to hide things from their parents is the parents endless invasive snooping and meddling, which is something I feel is not only disrespectful of their personhood, but actually hinders its development.

Now, that isn't to say you can't negotiate certain protections with a child - Kira has a GPS locator, it was her bloody idea in the first place cause she KNOWS she has a habit of wandering off when some fancy strikes her, and was completely in favor of having web filters to "keep away the icky stuff!", and this was HER CHOICE - but she'd take snooping through her room as an affront (just ask her brother) not cause she has anything to hide, but cause it's just a completely jackass thing to do.

Presumption of innocence, folks - that's what this is about.


And I'll hear not one fucking word in support of this kind of conduct from ANYONE here who has ever even once protested government wiretapping and warrantless searches without calling hypocrisy, cause that's exactly what it is - do YOU like big-parent-government all up in YOUR fucking business ?
Nor will you EVER be able to play the "If you have nothing to hide" excuse with me here, nope.

Then why inflict it on a child, and if you WANT folk to resist it in the future, conditioning your child to accept that bullshit from you, ensures that will not happen, does it not ?

The Golden Rule, fellow humans, if you wouldn't want it done to YOU, you damn well shouldn't be doin it to nobody else.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
But if you live in my house and I pay for it, your right of privacy is conditional. I don't intrude unless I feel I MUST, but I DO have the right to intrude.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

When does a child get privacy rights? The moment it occurs to you that they might want 'em, Mom and Dad. Simple as that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not only do the parents need to adapt their behavior to the young, the young need to conform their behavior to the group. It's not only acceptable, it's imperative that the adults intrude on the young.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
No we don't own kids, but we are responsible for them.

---

Quote:

---

Also, there is a big difference between the government and parents.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Normal parents whose children create extreme situations are going to behave more extremely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:M52Nick - point of that is, the parents who do this shit as a matter of course, cause they are advised by others to do so, or they have control issues, or simply don't trust their own kids as a projection of their own hypocrisy and deception (which children DO eventually learn, over time, from their parents, sure) often all the while pretending THEY were perfect little angels instead of being HONEST with their kids about their own failings and mistakes around that age...
I've seen that one a little too often to consider it a rarity, and it always bothers me how they can't learn from our mistakes unless we admit them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
A responsibility that can be exercised WHILE they OWN their own privacy as an inherent human right, a matter of human dignity. Once you decide that is a line that should not be crossed, you find solutions around it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
In terms of privacy, what difference would that be? The government, it can be argued, wants to protect us, and the rest of society, from the unwise decisions we may make. It is also charged with a responsibility for citizens, both individually and collectively. Why shouldn't the govt have the right to snoop in our lives when it wishes, as long as we are members of the community it governs?

---

Quote:

---

In some cases. In the end parents also have a inherent right to raise their children the way they wish.

---

Quote:

---

The difference is that governement is made up of the people. If the people feel that government should be able to snoop then the people should give government that power. Ultimatly it is in the control of the people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Relative to society, except in cases of abuse or perpetuating destructive or harmful behaviour, yes, parents wishes supercede those of society. Relative to the kids...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Let me pose an example. I would imagine most parents would prefer their children to themselves grow up and have children, which is less likely to occur if a child realizes that they are not heterosexual early on.

Should a parent suppress THOSE natural impulses in their own child? Should a parent try (and emphasis on TRY) to raise their children to "not be gay"? Like say through bible camp, or re-education attempts, or, in older times, shock therapy?

Or, say the parents are religious, and the child is not.

There are things that a child might do or feel that all the efforts of their loved ones can't change, and, I would argue, may be part of the fundamental make up of that child. You can ask a person to change, they might come around themselves eventually. But to FORCE a person, any age, to change?

I think that would be unwise, moreover, I think it may be impossible. I think families AND societies AND individuals, if the actions of the individual are unacceptable or could bring harm to themselves and others, must work together to find a situation and circumstance where tendencies are harmless, or even possibly productive. Or in the very least, in the case of some very unacceptable tendencies, a situation where the individual feels no need to express those tendencies. Work around and accommodate without enabling, essentially.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Parents don't are indiviuals that don't need to seek approval or permission from their children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Why not?

---

Quote:

---

As far as being forced to change, that is inevitable. Well all change and much is forced on because of society and necessity.

---

Quote:

---

My boys don't like to pick up their toys, they at time have outright refused to do so. They are going to learn to do it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Doesn't make it ethical.

I reject that necessity determines morality, and also society.

It may well be that our concepts of right and wrong are flawed, and submit that our society is not only inconsistent, but it's constructed to be convenient, not ethical.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well, first, I'm not sure about saying choices are the same thing as personality or psychological issues. I suppose they're related, and psychological issues are a mitigating factor, but bad choices can occur in the absence of psychological issues, and vice-versa.

That aside. When they give in, and I do say when, will it be because they've been forced to do so, or because they decided to accede to your wishes because you're their parent? Perhaps you might not see a difference between the two, but I do.

After all, even children, "selfish" as they're commonly thought to be, will at some point come to understand if their parent or family is struggling with a problem. I would take children genuinely deciding to help over learning that they will be forced to help and resenting it/avoiding it any day.

---

Quote:

---

Ethicts, morality, right and wrong are all subjective.

---

Quote:

---

My boys give in and pick up because they don't like seeing dad put their toys in a box and take them to the garage for a day or so. They don't like the consequences of their choice not to pick up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose: If a parent is flipping out about drugs or sex or whatever, it means they haven't properly educated their child. If a fourteen-year-old doesn't know when, how, and why to refuse, it's probably too late.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:Well, I suppose choices do have consequences. But I still wonder if this is really the same thing, or at least the same level, as the initial question. Which I think is about whether some things stifle personal development, and if personal development SHOULD be stifled?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I think it is a bit naive to think that a kid might get into drugs or the like simple because the parent did not teach them right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Not actually having conversations with a child about such issues is what will most likely make a parent flip out. Also, lack of education is absolutely a factor in decisions, and to think otherwise is to believe that people are born knowing everything. They aren't, of course, and by fourteen there is definitely access to potentially harmful activities. Ergo, if a fourteen year old does not know when, how, and why to refuse, it's too late to stop them. By then they have either refused, or they haven't. If they have, it's because they are aware of consequences (which is something most likely to be instilled in them by parents, since school programs are a joke of exaggeration and irritating slogans.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:


In some cases. In the end parents also have a inherent right to raise their children the way they wish.

---

Quote:

---

Clearly, humans are not "born" with rights to privacy, because if they are then it's all blown to hell at the diaper-wiping stage.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, I don't believe in absolute "rights", period. "rights" are whatever society chooses to grant you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Parents don't are indiviuals that don't need to seek approval or permission from their children.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Parents and children are not on equal footing when it comes to rules or decisions in the family.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Even if you believe in the moral justification of intrusion, it is a pointless endeavor.

---

Quote:

---

I for one think the quickest way to stifle a child’s development is to allow them to think that there are no consequences for their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:I wasn't asking about equal footing. I was asking why don't parents need the permission of their children to govern them?

Let me elaborate. The only other human population governed by another group of humans without their explicit consent and permission are slaves. Property.

I am concerned because it is a view that many adults have of children. That children, ultimately, are property, whose consent is not necessary to be governed.

I suspect this is NOT your view. So I am curious why you feel permission of children is not necessary for the children to be governed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
In fact, I don't believe in absolute "rights", period. "rights" are whatever society chooses to grant you.

---