REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

When do children/young adults gain full rights of privacy?

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 19:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10636
PAGE 1 of 6

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:04 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I was looking through some info on mobile phone plans on a web site and noticed someone's feedback on a specific family plan: "What I really like since I have 3 kids is the option for GPS tracking... being able to see where my kid is is important to me. It would be great if (the phone company) could set zones so if my child entered a specific zone it would send me an email..." It sounds overly obsessive to me, but I don't have kids, so what do I know (ok, still sounds suffocating).

Thinking back, when I was 12 I might not object to knowing my folks could see where I was (whether by phone or other device), but 14? 16? And then there's the whole policing of internet use... when do young people get to say, "enough! No more tracking!"

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



The twin blades of science and technology.

Where's my kid ? If they're being a normal, rebellious type, and don't want mommy and daddy to know, it's an invasion of privacy.

But what if they're in trouble ? Or some place they'd really not want to be, either taken there by friends, or worse... strangers.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:25 AM

BYTEMITE


I'd say that they always had those rights as soon as they can dress themselves - and likely before, since everyone has embarrassing bathtime baby pictures they'd probably prefer burned.

Just some kids might not chose to exercise the full extent of those rights, and they'll only get mad about it if or when they feel intruded upon. Some things are intrusions and some things aren't, and it varies from person to person. Much like with adults, and security measures some agencies take.

It does, however, have everything to do with consent.

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:54 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"When do children/young adults gain full rights of privacy?"

Short answer? Never.

Sorry to disappoint, but that's your government's view on things, since at least 2001. Your children never really had any "rights of privacy" anyway, but now even when they achieve age of majority, they ALSO no longer have any rights of privacy, according to the Patriot Act.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



I hadn't thought of it before but I suppose those screenings are a parallel of sorts - Uncle Sam is the parent and "if you live in my house... for the sake of safety... I will impose on your sense of privacy."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:44 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



This!

Like everyone's father use to say, my house, my money, my rules.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:56 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


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.



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?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 9:04 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?



No a 16 year old can't move out, but they can get and pay for their own phone.

My parents would call my friends houses and ask for me to make sure I was there.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:23 AM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:57 AM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: hmm, misread the initial question. I thought it was asking how it SHOULD be, not how it currently is (as in kids have no rights).

I really wasn't saying anything too different from you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:44 PM

STORYMARK


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.



Absolutely agree with this.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:44 PM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

That really sums it up. I was thoughtfully considering everyone's arguments--they all make a good point to me. But yours nails it. There is nothing more to consider after that. Thank you for clarifying the issue.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:54 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Children are of course human beings, they are just not adults. Trust between any two people comes over time. That includes parent and child. If a kid never gives a reason for a parent not to trust them, they will and visa versa. The thing is that if the child is caught lying then the parent has every right to make sure the kid is doing what they say they are. In the end the parents are responsible for the child's actions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

As a libertarian, I respect property rights as much as the next person. I understand your argument.

But should privacy be a HUMAN right that trumps property rights? In other words, should privacy be an issue of human dignity, a line that shouldn't be crossed ethically even when one has property rights?

For example, you buy clothing for your kids. They are YOUR clothes, and property-rights-wise, you have the right to choose whatever clothes you want to buy. But you wouldn't make your kids wear rags literally or dress like maids/butlers, because that would cross a line that violates their inherent dignity as fellow human beings. At some point, your property rights is trumped by their right to be free from indignity/psychological "abuse."

Is having your privacy violated a more subtle form of psychological "abuse"? Are you saying, in effect, "As long as you live in my house, I OWN you?"

The govt is always saying, "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Therefore, we should be able search you whenever we want." I have always believed that our right to be free from arbitrary searches is not an issue of hiding wrongdoing. I could be completely innocent and STILL not want to be searched. It is an issue of who OWNS me, and decides they get to see what is in my life whenever they wish: ME, or the Govt?

For me, privacy is an issue of ownership. Do we own our kids or do they own themselves?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:10 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


No we don't own kids, but we are responsible for them.

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

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:32 PM

HKCAVALIER


Aw fer cryin' outloud, would none of you even ASK your kid if they wouldn't mind you being able to locate them through their cell phone? Y'know, as if you cared for their safety and weren't just wanting to play your new power game? Government by the consent of the governed. I know, as a teenager, with all the hiking and trailblazing I did back then, I would have found such an option a comfort.

Trust is not earned, any more than love is earned, not when you're talking about our children. They deserve it and should get it. If your child betrays that trust--and I mean BETRAYS, not just a simple lie (yeah, like y'all never lied to your kid ever)--as I say, if they betray the trust you've freely given since birth, then, sure, you need to sit 'em down and tell 'em what you're gonna do.

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

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:57 PM

WISHIMAY


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.





Eh...Nothing is ever just that simple.

The differences between kids and adults are the reasons for monitoring. They are smaller, more influence-able, with much less world experience, intelligence, and an incomplete moral center or code and MUCH more likely to lie, especially to avoid punishment. They are also subject to the same mental diseases and incapacites as the rest of us but probably far less understanding of them and less coping mechanisms. A responsible parent knows what their kid is doing, and where they are AT ALL TIMES until such a time as they can prove reliability and maturity and there is no magical age for that to happen. If tracking your child and rifiling through their things is what is truly best for them, do it. If proper parenting and assesment of mental status is applied, then best case senaro major monitoring is not likely needed. If locker searches and pat-downs save one more kid from Colombine (which these days is more likely to happen than not) do it! Having a life is WAAAAY more important than being teed off for a while. They are not as able to protect themselves, so it should be done for them. Freedom is not free, even for kids. They must earn theirs until THEY become adults, and even then must still fight for it... The role of a parent is to guide their kids to adulthood, until they can truly be responsible for their own actions.

Or do nothing and hope for the best. May your suprises NOT be terminal.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA


No worries Byte, I'm pretty sure we have much the same opinion about it, only mine line on it is likely a little more harsh, but we already knew that, really.

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.

But anyhow, that PRE-EMPTIVE mistrust - that's what'll do the damage, it don't take too many of those kinds of things for your kid to never, ever trust or respect you again... some kids, it might only take ONE - think you're gonna unring the bell once you've proven to your child you cannot be trusted ?
IT GOES BOTH WAYS.

And as usual, HKCav, you nail a salient point - as I mentioned, it was Kiras own idea for the GPS locator, hell most kids these days would not MIND something like that, or an emergency beacon at the very least, given the potential dangers out there...
But there's a world of difference and of course, the idea of actually COMMUNICATING with the child never does enter a lot of parents minds, does it now ?

Which, right there, is as bad a sign if there ever was - you ask me.

-Frem
EDIT: PS - I ABSOLUTELY contest your assertion, Wishimay, but am out of time to post about it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 6:15 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I feel that the older your kids are the more thorough you should be about talking to them, being real with them. I don't think its ideal for a parent to sneak and get that GPS tracker for their kid's cellphone, a parent really should suggest it and see what the kid thinks. Now I wouldn't officially step on a parent's right to be allowed to do this, but I should hope that all kids old enough to have a cell phone would be able to sit down with their parents and wouldn't mind so much if the parents proposed such an idea. So in general I'd say its wrong to sneak and do it to your kids, but if there's a reason that you feel you should you should first tell them why you feel this way and then if they say no rutting way but you still feel its necessary then maybe it would be okay under rare circumstances. I should hope that most children would be trust worthy enough, raised well enough by this time that a parent wouldn't feel the need to use a tracker. But again there are exceptions to most rules in life.

About the computer filters, I don't believe in giving kids under 18/still in high school their own computers, the family computer in a public part of the house should be good enough. That way you know they're not getting in trouble online and its easy enough to just have basic filters on the main computer, nobody really needs to see "the icky stuff".

When it comes to diaries and such I believe that that should almost always be private and that parents should not look at them. I think the only time that it should even be considered is if the child is showing signs of imminant suicide atempting, any other situation and parents don't have business reading their children's private writings, ever.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 6:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I look to animals, as we are animals. There's a period of helpless infancy, a period of play, a dependent period of increasing and focused learning on the business of staying alive, a period of association with the adult(s) while practicing skills but able to fall back on the adult(s), then independence - or if you are a group-living species like humans - 'independence' within the group. There's no bright line between dependent infant and independent adult.

With people there's no bright line between the helpless and completely intruded-on infant (and I mean that in the best way) and the 'independent' adult.



EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 6:48 PM

BYTEMITE


I did mention consent...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:43 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


In the general sense, as I think about it - while it's true that a species doesn't survive unless its offspring survive long enough to have offspring of their own - in a group-living species it's also true that the species won't survive if the young imperil the survival of the group by their behavior. 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.

As for adults and children, the only time where you can expect reasonable behavior is when all are reasonably behaved. It's perfectly possible to have defiant, or unreasonable, or explosive or other extreme behavior in children as their native temperament. Normal parents who have trustworthy children aren't going to 'snoop'. Normal parents whose children create extreme situations are going to behave more extremely.



EVERY SINGLE YEAR BETWEEN 1996 AND 2005 66% OF ALL FCDS CORPORATIONS PAID NO TAXES.
I think the current tax structure is about right for corporations. - Geezer


Without the benefit of the surrounding society, a corporation dies. If society looks at a corporation and says 'work, or die', what work should be demanded of the corporation for it to earn its survival?

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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.


Because I am so short on time, and in the interests of civility - imma simply express that I strongly, even bitterly, disagree with that assessment, and leave it at that.

For now.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

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:

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

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?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:25 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

I would contend that children who create extreme situations do not have normal parents to begin with, and the absence of normal parenting (i.e. the presence of unusual/extreme parenting) is the reason the kids create extreme situations.

So would extraordinary snooping help or hurt an already dysfunctional relationship?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:37 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



I agree some parents are overbearing and have such issues that they can't trust their children even if they have been given to reason not to. Yes, I see that as a problem. As I said, trust is a two way street.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:43 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



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

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?



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.

Parents don't are indiviuals that don't need to seek approval or permission from their children.

In the end, government is government, and not you mother.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

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


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...

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:04 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


Except when it's controlled by the select few in government, who mostly only pretend to do what "the people" want, and usually end up going against the wishes of some group or other. Also, depending on your type of government, there might be both a majority and/or a minority getting ignored.

So considering no government can do or at least work on everything that everyone under its jurisdiction wants, that's kind of a generalization, and also kind of not true most of the time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:13 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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...



Of course.

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.



No I don't think that parents should try and raise children not to be gay. It will not work.

As for religion, I think that is a sticker issue. I have no problem with parents making a child attend church or religious instruction. Later on the child can decide for themselves if they want to follow that religion, another or none at all.

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


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:20 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

Why not?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:23 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Why not?



...because they are the parents. Parents and children are not on equal footing when it comes to rules or decisions in the family.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:23 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

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


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:

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.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:53 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Ethicts, morality, right and wrong are all subjective.


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.



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. Yes, I would like them to pick up just because they want to help. In many things they do. Normally when I wish they would not try to help. Like trying to fix bathroom plumbing with a five year old and three years old helping. In the end they choose to pick up their toys when asked.

Now if someone has true psychological issues that is a different story.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:11 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Children and young adults should steadily gain responsibilities as they get older, as well as the rights that go along with them.
By the time a child is eleven or twelve, they should be responsible enough to be home by themselves. At this point, it might be acceptable to have GPS tracking on a child's cell phone, because they don't know how to drive and don't have money for a cab or anything, so it can be difficult for them to get out of a situation that makes them uncomfortable. (That's the important thing, by the way; if a situation makes your child uncomfortable, it's good to have a means to go get them. If they're just at the mall or something when you thought they were down the street with a friend, that's nothing to freak about.) At this age, a parent should have to at least knock before entering a child's room.
By the time a child is thirteen or fourteen, they should have learned enough to be trusted with more responsibilities and decisions, and have the rights that go along with them. It might still be appropriate to have GPS for them in case of emergencies, but some sort of "distress signal" that they can activate might be better. At this age, a parent should stay out of their child's room unless invited, and leave their cell phone alone (no matter who is paying for it.) 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. Having conniptions over it will only make a teen resentful, whether they know better by then or not. If they don't, they'll probably be guilty and upset, possibly unable to cope. If they DO, they'll be super pissed off that a parent is questioning them. Trust me on that one.
By the time a child is fifteen or sixteen, old enough to legally learn to drive and get a job, they should basically be responsible for all things in their life except rent and food and such. If they have a car, that grants them a lot of freedom and rights, so they should be responsible for the car. If they don't fulfill their responsibilities, they don't get the rights, plain and simple. And frankly, this age is a perfect time for making some mistakes, because they still have a support system to help them. Trying to control every little thing a sixteen year old does is not only impossible, it's absolutely foolish. If you succeed at all, they won't know how to handle the world, and will probably be resentful. If you don't succeed, they'll be resentful of you trying and probably have a complex about feeling like nothing they do is ever good enough.
In the eyes of the law, a person does not gain full rights until they are eighteen. This fails to account for any transition between being a dependent child and an independent adult. Young adults should have rights to privacy as soon as they can think about having a right to privacy, even if it's something as simple as keeping their bedroom door closed and having that respected. Full rights to privacy? As soon as they can take responsibility for those rights. Rights without any responsibility is just asking for trouble, because it can create a sense of entitlement. Expecting someone to be responsible without granting them any rights? Asking for equal amounts of trouble, because frustrations will eventually burst into a title wave of anger that can rip relationships to shreds. It's not likely to accomplish anything, and if it does accomplish a small amount, it won't be worth it.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Ethicts, morality, right and wrong are all subjective.


Ehhh... Some what. I dip a little into the moral relativity pool myself, but there are a few things that I generally always consider bad outcomes.

I consider life significant, so causing intentional death is a bad outcome. I oscillate as to whether death by eating or in preparation to eat is an exception. Causing intentional harm increases direct or indirect risk of death and is bad. Some forms of hardship are harm, others are surmountable and therefore not. Also there's the choice-less choice-violation arguments I've gone into before, which is more an effort on my part to address more complex issues than life-death by asking myself which world I'd like to live in. Generally, I don't much like a world of violation, and I generally choose choice over less-choice.

I'm probably more tolerant than most people on definitions of right and wrong, but I'm not prepared to say that some things are not clearly WRONG. But I'll grant that the opposite of something that's clearly wrong is not always itself right either.

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.


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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:24 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.


I agree with most of what you are saying except for this. 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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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. Babies can't clean themselves, and therefore must be cleaned intrusively. In fact, I don't believe in absolute "rights", period. "rights" are whatever society chooses to grant you.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:33 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"If locker searches and pat-downs save one more kid from Colombine"

Hello,

http://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave-Cullen/dp/0446546933

I recommend this book. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Columbine and what might have happened there. To be brief, locker searches and pat-downs would not have saved anybody from Columbine.

On the issue of children, this is how I feel:

As soon as a person is capable of requesting a certain degree of privacy, I am inclined to grant it. I expect that most children would accept the gift of a cell phone, even knowing that it might be used to track their position in the event of an emergency. If not? Well, those of us over thirty somehow survived without tracking devices monitoring our positions.

Something I cannot stress enough is this: A person who wants their privacy will have it. They will lie, hide, and maneuver in order to obtain it. If you make invasions part of a person's life, they will begin to connive ways to avoid the invasions. It is nothing more than a war of escalation. Is this the relationship you want with loved ones?

My bedroom door used to have a peeper on it, like an outside door. You could peep into the room and see what I was up to. I disabled it permanently as soon as I could figure out how. This infuriated my mother. She ordered that I keep my door open. I did not. She wanted my door removed. My father wisely decided to end the escalating events here. I know my next act would have been to destroy their bedroom door.

My school materials were regularly searched. I stopped keeping anything important in my school effects. I lied to my mother constantly about anything I felt she might get upset about. Eventually, the lies became truth. I actually learned to forget things on demand, compartmentalizing events away from myself, just so that my own guilt and subconscious would no longer betray me.

Yes, in order to secure privacy, I learned to hide things from myself.

Even if you believe in the moral justification of intrusion, it is a pointless endeavor. There is no magic device that will intrude sufficiently into the lives of those who want privacy. Because it is a war that you can not win, it makes little sense to fight it. All you do is create anger, fear, and frustration.

The end result of intrusion for a society is worse than any consequence of not knowing something.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:37 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?


I would say there is a difference in why people make the choices they do.

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. If as a parent you never check up on what your child is doing, you don't know if they are telling you the truth. If they are, great. If not they are just learning that they can lie and get away with it. In my boys case if I allowed them to leave their toys out or pick them up myself I would only be teaching them that their is not consequences for leaving things laying around or worse that someone else will do things for you. The world simply does not work like that.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:06 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


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.


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.)


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:23 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.)



Lack of education maybe a factor in some cases. Yes, if the parents never have that conversation that is going be a factor. It however sounds as if you are suggesting that if a kid starts on drugs it is because there was no conversation or education or that conversation and education was not adequate. If that is your stance you are ignoring that fact that people make bad decision, even when perfectly well informed, sometimes.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:31 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


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.



Parents also have a legal and financial RESPONSIBILITY for their children's actions- liability in case of an automobile accident or DUI, for instance. Not on point re: cell phones, but in terms of the larger issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:32 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


Actually, I kinda think that it really IS blown all to hell. When something invasive happened to you when you were younger that you react to only when you're older, doesn't mean it was okay when you were younger just because you didn't know better.

Personal reaction to what happened or whatever happens reveals the amount of violation involved in a specific case. That's sometimes the only measure. But, I'd argue it is an important one, otherwise there'd be no justification for criminal charges against someone who raped an infant.

I think this is more a question of retroactive consent, which most people would probably give in regards to diaper changing and bathing, but not molestation/rape.

However, they might seriously object to their parents showing their girlfriend/boyfriend baby pictures of the bathing or diaper changing, which would perhaps be an invasion of privacy.

Quote:

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


I have to disagree on the basis that I could make a strong argument that life could suck a whole lot if those rights aren't recognized, and that life sucking could translate to death, and that therefore not recognizing such rights is not conducive to continued life or even continued civilization.

If not having something leads to death, having it must be an inherent necessity for living.

Also, I note that rights are presumably a protection against wrongs that might be done to you. I might go on to say that rights are, in fact, right.

Those of you who think society is the source of your rights: if you're waiting on society to grant them to you, may be you end up wronged, may be you end up having to fight to assert them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:38 AM

CANTTAKESKY


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.

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.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:39 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

Thank you. Well said.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:49 AM

BYTEMITE


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.


I mentioned not enabling? Also I pointed out that choices do have consequences? I'm not sure how this is a response to anything I said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:52 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Permission is not necessary because they are children. They do not have the ability the knowledge nor the experience to make some of the choices for their lives. As they grow older they do gain these and as such should be given more choice in those matters. With more choice comes more responsibility as well. It is this gaining of responsibility and choice that makes them different then property. It is ultimately what makes them adults.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

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

And if society chooses not to grant "rights" to you? Say a Bangladeshi community that doesn't think you have a right to live because you "seduced" a married man and are now impure and defiled? Or if your Alabama town says you don't have a right to sit anywhere you like on the bus because of how much pigmentation your skin has?

So the whole concept of Creator-endowed, unalienable rights...that's all hogwash?

I have to believe all human beings have inherent rights to equality and dignity. Underlying the right to dignity is the cardinal right to self-ownership and privacy.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL