5 ms·

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 hi

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.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        > You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. > 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. What do you think should be my goal? For my part, my goal is to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs that I hold. In part I do this for their benefit (so that they can be autonomous adults) and partly to shape future society. But perhaps most of all I share impart these values and beliefs because I value and believe them. No parent can help but to impart their values and beliefs. The only question is whether you do so consciously or not. > 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. Again, my apologies, but I really don't get what you are trying to convey. What does this have to do with compelling young children to eat their vegetables or restricting a teenager's access to lurid content on the internet? Perhaps you have different examples in mind? > 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. I have a moral obligation to help mold the plastic elements of my child's psyche (much of which is admittedly not malleable) to serve their best interests and the interests of the society into which they will enter. > I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you. Of course, no offense taken.
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

> 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.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. > 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. What do you think should be my goal? For my part, my goal is to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs that I hold. In part I do this for their benefit (so that they can be autonomous adults) and partly to shape future society. But perhaps most of all I share impart these values and beliefs because I value and believe them. No parent can help but to impart their values and beliefs. The only question is whether you do so consciously or not. > 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. Again, my apologies, but I really don't get what you are trying to convey. What does this have to do with compelling young children to eat their vegetables or restricting a teenager's access to lurid content on the internet? Perhaps you have different examples in mind? > 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. I have a moral obligation to help mold the plastic elements of my child's psyche (much of which is admittedly not malleable) to serve their best interests and the interests of the society into which they will enter. > I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you. Of course, no offense taken.

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...