4 ms·

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind t

by harryh 10y ago

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...

jes 10y ago
Kicking your child out of the house for doing what a child does is not in your long-term self interest or his.
- terrywilcox 10y ago
  Correct. Put him up for adoption instead.
  - jes 10y ago
    I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not. My point is this: Children have a certain nature; part of being a child is development of the ability to regulate one's emotions. Loving, thoughtful parents will (hopefully) learn about such things, such as Dr. Porges "Polyvagal Theory" and then be able to help their children with this process. I am not suggesting that people should abandon important relationships on a whim. I apologize if I was unclear on this.
    - terrywilcox 10y ago
      No sarcasm at all. Child abandonment is clearly bad for the child and can see the parent thrown in jail. Adoption is the better choice for both parties. I think you perhaps missed the broader point though. If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. They will also likely act in their own self-interest and ditch you. Otherwise, raising a child requires a great deal of self-sacrifice with absolutely no guarantee that you'll even get the satisfaction of a job well done. It's a total crap shoot and even the emotional return on your investment is likely to be poor. Acting only in your own self-interest is a good way to stay single and childless though. At least you'd have plenty of time to read Ayn Rand.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        > If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. I suggest you read GP a bit closer and/or work on when and how to apply your sarcasm :-) For starters you conveniently leave out both religious as well as purely selfish evolutionary motives.
      - jes 10y ago
        You and I seem to be having a good conversation. Thank you for that. I don't think raising my children to take care of me when I'm old (should be any day now) would be acting in my self-interest. In fact, I think it would be acting against my self-interest. A better model, I think, is for me to do all that I can to be self-sufficient, and not predatory in nature, in terms of expecting other people to care for me. As long as I can find pleasure in life and activities that interest me, like hacking in Lisp, or re-learning how to weld, or reading about philosophy, I'd like to go on living. When there are no longer reasonable things for me to pursue, then it's time to go. I certainly don't expect my children to do anything more for me than they freely wish to do. Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, and since children are essentially powerless to leave a family that treats them poorly, until they reach some age where they can be self-sufficient.
        iofj 10y ago
        With interest rates at 0.25% and the Fed talking about doubting whether they should go down or up, I hope you're not thinking that a pension fund will take care of you when you're old. That won't happen. With interest rates under inflation, you are in fact losing spending power (that is of course the point of the policy: incentivize people to spend now, not save to accelerate the economy). Pension funds are failing because of Fed policy [1], and the current elderly are plundering them dry for the same reason you defend children. They have a right to a pension [2]. Given that stocks have now also refused to go up further (since January SP500 has only gone down. Granted, they came back up to about 2100, but there is negative return so far for the year. How negative varies quite a bit from day to day, but may God help retirees if they drop from here and stay down). The model where Children take care of elderly is coming back, unless the Fed and the ECB stop acting like we're in the midst of a deep recession. > Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, And if the alternative is to starve to death a year or two after you no longer have the ability to work ? What if the alternative is merely to live in poverty when you stop working ? Do people have the right to not live in complete poverty ? I'd say yes. What if there is no choice but to "use" children to accomplish that, like we did for 90%+ of history ? That second one seems to be happening to plenty of elderly today, and they had far, far better circumstances to avoid it than you or I do today. I'm not even saying that this is moral, or that it is what you have to do. I'm saying it's what's going to happen if present circumstances remain. [1] https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pension-fund/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pe... http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kroger-ups-challenge-central-states-reduction-plan http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kro...
- mangeletti 10y ago
  It's painful watching you futilely try to impart some basic wisdom to a bunch of junior high school students. I recommend an episode of RadioLab called "The Good Show"[1]. 1. http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/
  - jes 10y ago
    I'm enjoying the podcast you recommended. Thank you. I've liked some of the work by Sam Harris, as well.
bbcbasic 10y ago
Really. You get angry at a baby? To answer your question... kick him out this week by getting a relative to take care of him for a night and catch up on sleep.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  Best advice ever right there - our sanity was saved on several occasions by friends offering to look after our child for a night when he was small and not sleeping.
timv 10y ago
How many times do you put up with your kid beating up his mother when he comes home drunk in the middle of the night before you require him to move out of the house? Keep in mind that his is 15 years old... As parents, we tend to believe that we will always love our kids in a way that allows us to maintain healthy functioning relationship with them no matter what happens. But when you see what can go wrong in families and how 1 member's behaviours can have a massive detrimental impact on the other members, you realise that there are limits to that. While I will always love my kids, I know, objectively, that there are circumstances that could force me to fundamentally alter the terms of my relationship with them. I pray that never happens, but I know it's possible. Similarly, I know plenty of people who no longer have any relationship with one or both of their parents due to the way they were treated as kids. Society (rightly) tends to be more accepting of a child who decides to sever their relationship with an unloving parent than the reverse.
- fullshark 10y ago
  Your point is ok but your hypothetical is so ludicrous it undermines it.
  - timv 10y ago
    > your hypothetical is so ludicrous My wife is a former welfare case worker. The scenario I painted is quite real, but if it is so far removed from your reality that it seems ludicrous then that says good things about your family life.

by harryh 10y ago

How many times do I have to get annoyed at my kid for waking up in the middle of the night before you're OK with me kicking him out of the house? Keep in mind that he is currently 11 months old...

jes 10y ago

Kicking your child out of the house for doing what a child does is not in your long-term self interest or his.

terrywilcox 10y ago
Correct. Put him up for adoption instead.
- jes 10y ago
  I'm unclear as to whether this was meant to be sarcastic or not. My point is this: Children have a certain nature; part of being a child is development of the ability to regulate one's emotions. Loving, thoughtful parents will (hopefully) learn about such things, such as Dr. Porges "Polyvagal Theory" and then be able to help their children with this process. I am not suggesting that people should abandon important relationships on a whim. I apologize if I was unclear on this.
  - terrywilcox 10y ago
    No sarcasm at all. Child abandonment is clearly bad for the child and can see the parent thrown in jail. Adoption is the better choice for both parties. I think you perhaps missed the broader point though. If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. They will also likely act in their own self-interest and ditch you. Otherwise, raising a child requires a great deal of self-sacrifice with absolutely no guarantee that you'll even get the satisfaction of a job well done. It's a total crap shoot and even the emotional return on your investment is likely to be poor. Acting only in your own self-interest is a good way to stay single and childless though. At least you'd have plenty of time to read Ayn Rand.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      > If you're raising children as servants to take care of you when you're old, then yes, self-interest is a good reason to keep them around. I suggest you read GP a bit closer and/or work on when and how to apply your sarcasm :-) For starters you conveniently leave out both religious as well as purely selfish evolutionary motives.
    - jes 10y ago
      You and I seem to be having a good conversation. Thank you for that. I don't think raising my children to take care of me when I'm old (should be any day now) would be acting in my self-interest. In fact, I think it would be acting against my self-interest. A better model, I think, is for me to do all that I can to be self-sufficient, and not predatory in nature, in terms of expecting other people to care for me. As long as I can find pleasure in life and activities that interest me, like hacking in Lisp, or re-learning how to weld, or reading about philosophy, I'd like to go on living. When there are no longer reasonable things for me to pursue, then it's time to go. I certainly don't expect my children to do anything more for me than they freely wish to do. Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, and since children are essentially powerless to leave a family that treats them poorly, until they reach some age where they can be self-sufficient.
      - iofj 10y ago
        With interest rates at 0.25% and the Fed talking about doubting whether they should go down or up, I hope you're not thinking that a pension fund will take care of you when you're old. That won't happen. With interest rates under inflation, you are in fact losing spending power (that is of course the point of the policy: incentivize people to spend now, not save to accelerate the economy). Pension funds are failing because of Fed policy [1], and the current elderly are plundering them dry for the same reason you defend children. They have a right to a pension [2]. Given that stocks have now also refused to go up further (since January SP500 has only gone down. Granted, they came back up to about 2100, but there is negative return so far for the year. How negative varies quite a bit from day to day, but may God help retirees if they drop from here and stay down). The model where Children take care of elderly is coming back, unless the Fed and the ECB stop acting like we're in the midst of a deep recession. > Children are not born to be servants to their parents, as you observe. That's why I think it's incumbent on parents to treat their children as best as they possibly can, since children come into a family without being able to consent, And if the alternative is to starve to death a year or two after you no longer have the ability to work ? What if the alternative is merely to live in poverty when you stop working ? Do people have the right to not live in complete poverty ? I'd say yes. What if there is no choice but to "use" children to accomplish that, like we did for 90%+ of history ? That second one seems to be happening to plenty of elderly today, and they had far, far better circumstances to avoid it than you or I do today. I'm not even saying that this is moral, or that it is what you have to do. I'm saying it's what's going to happen if present circumstances remain. [1] https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d https://next.ft.com/content/c9966bea-fcd8-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pension-fund/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/retirement/central-states-pe... http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kroger-ups-challenge-central-states-reduction-plan http://www.pionline.com/article/20160502/PRINT/305029995/kro...
mangeletti 10y ago
It's painful watching you futilely try to impart some basic wisdom to a bunch of junior high school students. I recommend an episode of RadioLab called "The Good Show"[1]. 1. http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/103951-the-good-show/
- jes 10y ago
  I'm enjoying the podcast you recommended. Thank you. I've liked some of the work by Sam Harris, as well.

bbcbasic 10y ago

Really. You get angry at a baby? To answer your question... kick him out this week by getting a relative to take care of him for a night and catch up on sleep.

jon-wood 10y ago
Best advice ever right there - our sanity was saved on several occasions by friends offering to look after our child for a night when he was small and not sleeping.

timv 10y ago

How many times do you put up with your kid beating up his mother when he comes home drunk in the middle of the night before you require him to move out of the house? Keep in mind that his is 15 years old... As parents, we tend to believe that we will always love our kids in a way that allows us to maintain healthy functioning relationship with them no matter what happens. But when you see what can go wrong in families and how 1 member's behaviours can have a massive detrimental impact on the other members, you realise that there are limits to that. While I will always love my kids, I know, objectively, that there are circumstances that could force me to fundamentally alter the terms of my relationship with them. I pray that never happens, but I know it's possible. Similarly, I know plenty of people who no longer have any relationship with one or both of their parents due to the way they were treated as kids. Society (rightly) tends to be more accepting of a child who decides to sever their relationship with an unloving parent than the reverse.

fullshark 10y ago
Your point is ok but your hypothetical is so ludicrous it undermines it.
- timv 10y ago
  > your hypothetical is so ludicrous My wife is a former welfare case worker. The scenario I painted is quite real, but if it is so far removed from your reality that it seems ludicrous then that says good things about your family life.