3 ms·

And that child is not a ward of the state. Parenting has scope. Socially and legally. If you don't want anyone over-extending in to your life, beliefs, etc. the

And that child is not a ward of the state. Parenting has scope. Socially and legally. If you don't want anyone over-extending in to your life, beliefs, etc. then that - like it or not - is a two way street. So you'll respect the child while disrespecting the parent? But don't recognize the hypocrisy. You're on the slippery slope. Be careful. Be very very careful. The fall can be painful.

progman32 4y ago
Can you clarify what you believe this slippery slope is causing us to slip towards?
colechristensen 4y ago
I didn’t mention anything about the state. There is no hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with respecting one or the other. There are certain human rights which are wrong to violate no matter who does it or to whom. Basic knowledge of and discussion of human sexuality is one of those rights. The state should be involved in regulating very powerful tools that allow someone to dig in and shape the communication and information available to others. “Big brother” needs to be stopped whether it is a nation or an overbearing parent.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Links to those rights pleases. Links to the laws (in the USA) that say parents forfeit their rights to those. Either way, that child is not entitled to an unfiltered internet, especially when the parents might suffer legal jeopardy if that became public knowledge. You're taking these children out of context, putting them on an island, and then too strongly suggesting you know better than their parents. Links to that precedent please. Parents have no right. Kids do. And you're the arbitrator? Yes, sorry, there's plenty of hypocrisy in that scenario.
mrtesthah 4y ago
Parents are not owners of their children and as such have no right to deprive them of basic knowledge about their bodies and identities. Sure, there's a slippery slope -- in the direction of authoritarian parental control, which results in parents imprisoning their children within a controlling and insular community to keep them indoctrinated and obedient -- all for the sake of "protecting" them from viewpoints that might one day cause them to think for themselves.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  No they're not. Theories aside. Parents *do* have legal rights and responsiblities. Unless, the parent(s) drop that ball, their decisions have priority. That's how the society works. All this backseat patenting is not a good look. Unless a legal line is crossed, you do not and cannot know what is best for someone else's child. If you believe otherwise, you ironically probably aren't fit to parent. This is how liberty and freedom works currently, at least in the USA.
  - mrtesthah 4y ago
    While parents have legal obligations to their children, they have no moral right to control them independently of ensuring basic safety and order. Laws can't define right and wrong, and it is most definitely wrong for a parent to purposefully deprive their children of education and exposure to the world solely for the benefit and protection of that parent's own ego. Children are, and have always been, raised in a society. They are not your personal slaves to lock in a closet and isolate from the world. Our social contract protects the rights of individuals. You can't claim to be in favor of liberty while denying it to someone else.
- TheHappyOddish 4y ago
  Parents absolutely have a right to withhold information from a child until it's appropriate. Would you teach a 3 year old about the safest methods of heroin injection and not to share needles? It's about their body. You're approaching a very nuanced subject with a very black and white view. Parenting is hard, and marred by our own experiences. In addition, every kid is different in maturity, emotional intelligence, ways of processing information, etc. The person who knows them best and who is trying to do the best they can for them probably has a better idea than you do here.

progman32 4y ago

Can you clarify what you believe this slippery slope is causing us to slip towards?

colechristensen 4y ago

I didn’t mention anything about the state. There is no hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with respecting one or the other. There are certain human rights which are wrong to violate no matter who does it or to whom. Basic knowledge of and discussion of human sexuality is one of those rights. The state should be involved in regulating very powerful tools that allow someone to dig in and shape the communication and information available to others. “Big brother” needs to be stopped whether it is a nation or an overbearing parent.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Links to those rights pleases. Links to the laws (in the USA) that say parents forfeit their rights to those. Either way, that child is not entitled to an unfiltered internet, especially when the parents might suffer legal jeopardy if that became public knowledge. You're taking these children out of context, putting them on an island, and then too strongly suggesting you know better than their parents. Links to that precedent please. Parents have no right. Kids do. And you're the arbitrator? Yes, sorry, there's plenty of hypocrisy in that scenario.

mrtesthah 4y ago

Parents are not owners of their children and as such have no right to deprive them of basic knowledge about their bodies and identities. Sure, there's a slippery slope -- in the direction of authoritarian parental control, which results in parents imprisoning their children within a controlling and insular community to keep them indoctrinated and obedient -- all for the sake of "protecting" them from viewpoints that might one day cause them to think for themselves.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
No they're not. Theories aside. Parents *do* have legal rights and responsiblities. Unless, the parent(s) drop that ball, their decisions have priority. That's how the society works. All this backseat patenting is not a good look. Unless a legal line is crossed, you do not and cannot know what is best for someone else's child. If you believe otherwise, you ironically probably aren't fit to parent. This is how liberty and freedom works currently, at least in the USA.
- mrtesthah 4y ago
  While parents have legal obligations to their children, they have no moral right to control them independently of ensuring basic safety and order. Laws can't define right and wrong, and it is most definitely wrong for a parent to purposefully deprive their children of education and exposure to the world solely for the benefit and protection of that parent's own ego. Children are, and have always been, raised in a society. They are not your personal slaves to lock in a closet and isolate from the world. Our social contract protects the rights of individuals. You can't claim to be in favor of liberty while denying it to someone else.
TheHappyOddish 4y ago
Parents absolutely have a right to withhold information from a child until it's appropriate. Would you teach a 3 year old about the safest methods of heroin injection and not to share needles? It's about their body. You're approaching a very nuanced subject with a very black and white view. Parenting is hard, and marred by our own experiences. In addition, every kid is different in maturity, emotional intelligence, ways of processing information, etc. The person who knows them best and who is trying to do the best they can for them probably has a better idea than you do here.