4 ms·

> Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property. Kids are nobody's property, and parent absolutely have the right to i

by telmo 7y ago

> Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property. Kids are nobody's property, and parent absolutely have the right to ignore the rest of the family as long as they observe the laws of the land.

rayiner 7y ago
It’s a very liberal western viewpoint. The vast majority of humanity would disagree.
- klodolph 7y ago
  A belief about values cannot be called a "false belief". You should rephrase that.
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  So?
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance.
    - telmo 7y ago
      > It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today It's the majority view where I live (European Union) and it is also the law here, and there is little reason to think that this will change in the foreseeable future, so pretty relevant to me, I would say. > and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance. Why does there have to be "dominance"? Can't we all just get along and respect each other? Including our children?
      - rayiner 7y ago
        We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one. Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong, and must you graciously accept that criticism? In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.” That is the better answer. The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.)
      - telmo 7y ago
        > We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one. Legal rules don't exist in a void, they usually originate from social norms. Of course, social norms evolve, and so do laws. > Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong, Entitled? Of course not. > and must you graciously accept that criticism? Must? No. It is wise of me to consider the criticism of those that earned my respect, as well as it is wise of those whose respect I earned to consider mine. But again, respect is earned. My parents were very nice to me and deserve all of my respect, but unfortunately I have witnessed many situations were parents do not deserve the respect of their children. It's not an automatic status that comes from procreating. > In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.” Also in my own culture (Southern Europe) until not so long ago. I know of cases of children being driven to suicide because of such norms. No thanks, I prefer the new norms here. > That is the better answer. That is your opinion, but if you care to provide an actual argument I am willing to listen. > The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.) You seem to be obsessed with the collapse of western culture. I'm not sure what this even means. We are all confronting a global existential crisis (climate change), perhaps time to let go of these petty conflicts?
    - fipar 7y ago
      Latin American here, kids are nobody’s property here either. As parents we have legal custody of our children while they’re minors, but we can lose it.
- telmo 7y ago
  Sure, and that is besides the point. Liberal western democracies are not perfect, but they get a few things right and this is one of them. I believe that children are not cattle, and I would keep believing that even if 100% of everyone else thought otherwise.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I’m thinking you’re reading “community property” more literally than I intended it—with the focus on “property” and not “community.” Obviously children are not property. But children are also not independent adults. They must be socialized. Legal codes all over the world, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, recognize that parents have a right to choose how to socialize their children. My point is that communities are also entitled to have a say, or at least express their views, in how children in their community are socialized. (“Community property” is a legal concept in the US where assets belong to both spouses simultaneously, with each spouse having a full, undivided interest. The metaphor is to express that family and the community has an interest in each child, not that children are property.)
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I think the words you're using here are --- if not unclear, then at least "not carefully chosen to avoid offending this particular audience", but the point you're making is pretty straightforward, and it's not hard to think of comparable secular parenting decisions that we generally have no trouble criticizing parents over. But there's also a subtext here, which is that there's a distinction to be made between good-faith, substantive parenting critiques and externally-mandated arbitrary critiques. If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic. I think you probably have to acknowledge that subtext to really engage on this topic --- which, who could blame anyone for not wanting to really engage on religion on HN?
      - rayiner 7y ago
        > If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic. I’m not sure, in 2020, I agree. I’m sensitive to the issue. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. But I don’t begrudge all the Pakistani cab drivers who try to convert me. They believe they’re doing me a favor. (I’m never the one to bring it up obviously. It always arises awkwardly when I mention that I’m from Bangladesh and then they assume I’m Muslim.) Leaving religion out of it — nobody has a right to be accepted by a community. In a free society people can leave, but can they really demand a particular sort of treatment?

by telmo 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

It’s a very liberal western viewpoint. The vast majority of humanity would disagree.

klodolph 7y ago
A belief about values cannot be called a "false belief". You should rephrase that.
ryanwaggoner 7y ago
So?
- rayiner 7y ago
  It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance.
  - telmo 7y ago
    > It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today It's the majority view where I live (European Union) and it is also the law here, and there is little reason to think that this will change in the foreseeable future, so pretty relevant to me, I would say. > and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance. Why does there have to be "dominance"? Can't we all just get along and respect each other? Including our children?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one. Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong, and must you graciously accept that criticism? In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.” That is the better answer. The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.)
    - telmo 7y ago
      > We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one. Legal rules don't exist in a void, they usually originate from social norms. Of course, social norms evolve, and so do laws. > Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong, Entitled? Of course not. > and must you graciously accept that criticism? Must? No. It is wise of me to consider the criticism of those that earned my respect, as well as it is wise of those whose respect I earned to consider mine. But again, respect is earned. My parents were very nice to me and deserve all of my respect, but unfortunately I have witnessed many situations were parents do not deserve the respect of their children. It's not an automatic status that comes from procreating. > In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.” Also in my own culture (Southern Europe) until not so long ago. I know of cases of children being driven to suicide because of such norms. No thanks, I prefer the new norms here. > That is the better answer. That is your opinion, but if you care to provide an actual argument I am willing to listen. > The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.) You seem to be obsessed with the collapse of western culture. I'm not sure what this even means. We are all confronting a global existential crisis (climate change), perhaps time to let go of these petty conflicts?
  - fipar 7y ago
    Latin American here, kids are nobody’s property here either. As parents we have legal custody of our children while they’re minors, but we can lose it.
telmo 7y ago
Sure, and that is besides the point. Liberal western democracies are not perfect, but they get a few things right and this is one of them. I believe that children are not cattle, and I would keep believing that even if 100% of everyone else thought otherwise.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I’m thinking you’re reading “community property” more literally than I intended it—with the focus on “property” and not “community.” Obviously children are not property. But children are also not independent adults. They must be socialized. Legal codes all over the world, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, recognize that parents have a right to choose how to socialize their children. My point is that communities are also entitled to have a say, or at least express their views, in how children in their community are socialized. (“Community property” is a legal concept in the US where assets belong to both spouses simultaneously, with each spouse having a full, undivided interest. The metaphor is to express that family and the community has an interest in each child, not that children are property.)
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I think the words you're using here are --- if not unclear, then at least "not carefully chosen to avoid offending this particular audience", but the point you're making is pretty straightforward, and it's not hard to think of comparable secular parenting decisions that we generally have no trouble criticizing parents over. But there's also a subtext here, which is that there's a distinction to be made between good-faith, substantive parenting critiques and externally-mandated arbitrary critiques. If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic. I think you probably have to acknowledge that subtext to really engage on this topic --- which, who could blame anyone for not wanting to really engage on religion on HN?
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic. I’m not sure, in 2020, I agree. I’m sensitive to the issue. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. But I don’t begrudge all the Pakistani cab drivers who try to convert me. They believe they’re doing me a favor. (I’m never the one to bring it up obviously. It always arises awkwardly when I mention that I’m from Bangladesh and then they assume I’m Muslim.) Leaving religion out of it — nobody has a right to be accepted by a community. In a free society people can leave, but can they really demand a particular sort of treatment?