4 ms·

>I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children

>I don't know how you got the idea of property or lack of trust here: my family know exactly what has been done and how to bypass it — I have taught my children to break unjust rules, but obey just ones based their moral judgement. The DNS filtering is for their protection, not their control. If your children know how to break the filters, and they wouldn't get in trouble for doing so, then I retract my statements. >ps. you REALLY ought to make your children wear their seat-belts in the back of the car, freedom be damned. ;) This is not a fair comparison, you are legally obliged to wear a seatbelt in the car. I would not drive my adult friends around if they refused to wear their seatbelt.

enitihas 7y ago
For a better comparison, do you not force your children to take not legally mandatory vaccines, and leave it to their judgement?
- TheNorthman 7y ago
  Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines?
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. As someone who actually does mainly employ this technique because it is generally more effective (especially with very spirited children), this is a delusional statement. For one thing, children don't always respond in good faith, and some (especially those who are verbally gifted) will try to manipulate the process of dialogue. It's also a bad idea to give them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not.
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
      > false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not. It is up for negotiating, though. If you don't treat them as a rational being _always_ then you never treat them as rational. You don't get to choose when their rationality applies. If you do choose then you're the one who gives "them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not".
      - lliamander 7y ago
        > If you do choose then you're the one who gives "them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not". I do not give false impressions because I tell my children when I am giving them an option or an explanation. When they are young, you require certain behavior of them so that they can develop healthy habits. Things like "eat your vegetables", "wash your hands" or "don't take your younger siblings toys out of their hands" are mandatory because it is important for children to develop habits of health, hygiene, and pro-social behavior. I may use positive as well as negative reinforcement, but you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation. When they are older, you grant them more autonomy but require behavior of them as a consequence of the fact that they are your dependents. As a parent, I am both the owner of the house they live in and their legal guardian. That means that I have latitude to set restrictions on their behavior so long as they are a) residents in my house, and b) my legal wards. When they are old enough, they are perfectly within their rights to seek emancipation. The goal, of course, is to set bounds that are both sufficiently liberal and sufficiently reasonable that the (older) child will have no desire to seek complete autonomy prior to the age of majority.
        TheNorthman 7y ago
        > I do not give false impressions You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in. Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society. > you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation. You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about. > and their legal guardian Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it. [0] I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Several vaccines are most effective when administered to infants. I'm not explaining to infants the benefits of herd immunity, I'm doing what's good for them as their parent.
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
      No one is claiming that you have to make your infant understand. This isn't even a reasonable misunderstanding, the problem lies entirely with you.
      - drdeca 7y ago
        After what point in time does the offspring have to agree to getting the vaccine? How can one tell?
      - pwinnski 7y ago
        Are infants property? That seems to be the level of reasoning on display here. There is clearly a continuum between infants and adult roommates, but as the person who pays the internet bill, I decide what the default DNS server is. Those old enough to be bothered by that are welcome to choose a non-default DNS server. To argue that this is somehow immoral because children shouldn't have their default DNS provider dictated to them is asinine, an argument most likely to resonate with teenagers without kids of their own.
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    > Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines? Sounds like one of those with highest quality of life, gini and longest life expectancy countries. Yuck!
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
      Yea, countries like those in Scandinavia, where they have such a low quality of life...
lliamander 7y ago
Drawing the line for the behavior of what I require my children to do at "is this legal or not?" is patently a bad idea, not to mention morally confused. As children get older, you of course give them more autonomy, but so long as they are your dependents, you have both an obligation and a right to set reasonable boundaries on their behavior. I certainly explain the rationale, and when possible try to persuade rather than force behavior where possible, and also let them make bad choices so they can learn from the experience, but they don't always possess the rational capacity to think about the long-term consequences or the ability to deal with those consequences when they occur. I require my children to brush their teeth, because a failure to do so would result in both poor health consequences for them, and a great deal of expense for me. As for restricting access to lurid content when my children are given internet access? Absolutely. I say this as someone who had unfiltered internet access as a teenager. They do whatever they want once they get their own internet access.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >As for restricting access to lurid content when my children are given internet access? Absolutely. I say this as someone who had unfiltered internet access as a teenager. They do whatever they want once they get their own internet access. I think that's the parent poster's point. You had this kind of access. Do you think you're worse off now because you had this access as a teenager?
  - drdeca 7y ago
    I am worse off due to the access which I had.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    I gained a lot of benefit from the internet, but not from access to lurid content.

enitihas 7y ago

For a better comparison, do you not force your children to take not legally mandatory vaccines, and leave it to their judgement?

TheNorthman 7y ago
Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines?
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Perhaps it hasn't been necessary to force them because he is capable of explaining _why_ they're important, i.e. he is capable of engaging in a dialogue with his children. As someone who actually does mainly employ this technique because it is generally more effective (especially with very spirited children), this is a delusional statement. For one thing, children don't always respond in good faith, and some (especially those who are verbally gifted) will try to manipulate the process of dialogue. It's also a bad idea to give them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    > false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not. It is up for negotiating, though. If you don't treat them as a rational being _always_ then you never treat them as rational. You don't get to choose when their rationality applies. If you do choose then you're the one who gives "them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not".
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > If you do choose then you're the one who gives "them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not". I do not give false impressions because I tell my children when I am giving them an option or an explanation. When they are young, you require certain behavior of them so that they can develop healthy habits. Things like "eat your vegetables", "wash your hands" or "don't take your younger siblings toys out of their hands" are mandatory because it is important for children to develop habits of health, hygiene, and pro-social behavior. I may use positive as well as negative reinforcement, but you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation. When they are older, you grant them more autonomy but require behavior of them as a consequence of the fact that they are your dependents. As a parent, I am both the owner of the house they live in and their legal guardian. That means that I have latitude to set restrictions on their behavior so long as they are a) residents in my house, and b) my legal wards. When they are old enough, they are perfectly within their rights to seek emancipation. The goal, of course, is to set bounds that are both sufficiently liberal and sufficiently reasonable that the (older) child will have no desire to seek complete autonomy prior to the age of majority.
      - TheNorthman 7y ago
        > I do not give false impressions You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in. Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society. > you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation. You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about. > and their legal guardian Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it. [0] I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Several vaccines are most effective when administered to infants. I'm not explaining to infants the benefits of herd immunity, I'm doing what's good for them as their parent.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    No one is claiming that you have to make your infant understand. This isn't even a reasonable misunderstanding, the problem lies entirely with you.
    - drdeca 7y ago
      After what point in time does the offspring have to agree to getting the vaccine? How can one tell?
    - pwinnski 7y ago
      Are infants property? That seems to be the level of reasoning on display here. There is clearly a continuum between infants and adult roommates, but as the person who pays the internet bill, I decide what the default DNS server is. Those old enough to be bothered by that are welcome to choose a non-default DNS server. To argue that this is somehow immoral because children shouldn't have their default DNS provider dictated to them is asinine, an argument most likely to resonate with teenagers without kids of their own.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  > Also, what kind of weird country do you live in where there even is such a thing as legally mandatory vaccines? Sounds like one of those with highest quality of life, gini and longest life expectancy countries. Yuck!
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    Yea, countries like those in Scandinavia, where they have such a low quality of life...

lliamander 7y ago

Drawing the line for the behavior of what I require my children to do at "is this legal or not?" is patently a bad idea, not to mention morally confused. As children get older, you of course give them more autonomy, but so long as they are your dependents, you have both an obligation and a right to set reasonable boundaries on their behavior. I certainly explain the rationale, and when possible try to persuade rather than force behavior where possible, and also let them make bad choices so they can learn from the experience, but they don't always possess the rational capacity to think about the long-term consequences or the ability to deal with those consequences when they occur. I require my children to brush their teeth, because a failure to do so would result in both poor health consequences for them, and a great deal of expense for me. As for restricting access to lurid content when my children are given internet access? Absolutely. I say this as someone who had unfiltered internet access as a teenager. They do whatever they want once they get their own internet access.

Mirioron 7y ago
>As for restricting access to lurid content when my children are given internet access? Absolutely. I say this as someone who had unfiltered internet access as a teenager. They do whatever they want once they get their own internet access. I think that's the parent poster's point. You had this kind of access. Do you think you're worse off now because you had this access as a teenager?
- drdeca 7y ago
  I am worse off due to the access which I had.
- lliamander 7y ago
  I gained a lot of benefit from the internet, but not from access to lurid content.