3 ms·

> if you're really worried about it, you as a parent should be the one to do something about it, not the government, because you'll reach a point in time where

by hnfong 3y ago

> if you're really worried about it, you as a parent should be the one to do something about it, not the government, because you'll reach a point in time where they are the ones saying how you should and shouldn't raise your kids I suspect part of the reason policies like these have popular support is the twisted idea that I should be able to dictate how you raise your kids...

tivert 3y ago
> I suspect part of the reason policies like these have popular support is the twisted idea that I should be able to dictate how you raise your kids... That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids. The "beating" bit has nothing to do with raising children. It is not ok to beat people in general, so I don't see why one gotta make a special case of "raising kids" when it comes to physical violence. If "beating people" is already illegal (edge cases of self-defense and such obviously apply), then "beating kids" is also illegal. I do think it is a "twisted idea" to dictate how one should raise their kids in all the minor aspects beyond the baseline, and I also believe that beating your own kids is no more ok than beating an adult.
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids. > The "beating" bit has nothing to do with raising children. Says you, but historically a lot of parents have disagreed. Statements like the one I quoted in the GP are often revealed to be equivalent to something like "people totally shouldn't be allowed to impose their beliefs about X on others...except for my beliefs, which totally should be imposed on others because I've confused them with the objective laws of nature or something."
    - filoleg 3y ago
      > Says you, but historically a lot of parents have disagreed. Historically, a lot of people disagreed with honor killings being not ok either (and in some regions of the world, they still do). The fact of the matter is, in the present day in western countries, honor killings are illegal and aren't accepted. The history of it is irrelevant, and so is whether the victim of an honor killing is a child or an adult (in terms of qualifying the event as legal/illegal; it might be relevant for the actual sentencing, but I digress). But that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if some action is considered illegal to perform on an adult subject, I would not consider it a "twisted idea of forcing your beliefs about raising children onto others" to think that those actions are illegal as well when the subject is a child. And I am saying this as someone who is very against overbearing and controlling helicopter-parenting, and who is more on the side of giving kids a chance to explore and learn their surroundings by being potentially exposed to a little bit of controlled danger.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > But that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if some action is considered illegal to perform on an adult subject, I would not consider it a "twisted idea of forcing your beliefs about raising children onto others" to think that those actions are illegal as well when the subject is a child. Except that child-rearing involves actions that would be "considered illegal to perform on an adult subject" (e.g. grounding a kid for misbehavior or putting a two-year-old in a time-out would arguably be false imprisonment if applied to an adult). There are necessary exceptions for parent-child relationships, because the latter is immature. Creating a false equivalency between children and adults isn't a valid side-step to salvage that statement about the "twisted idea."
throwaway67743 3y ago
You'd be surprised how prevelant the direct intervention of state is in all aspects of life, even in the "democratic" EU - nobody sees this dictation a problem, but it's especially more acute being Western - especially when looking at central, eastern and Baltic states.
pessimizer 3y ago
> the twisted idea that I should be able to dictate how you raise your kids... This is lazy. Of course society should be able to dictate how you raise your kids to some extent. If somebody starts sleeping with their kids, you don't want society to react to that? Of course you do. So the question is how much society should be dictating how you raise your kids, which isn't an easy question. You have to balance the rights of the parents over the child, the rights of the child as an independent citizen, and, undeniably, the standards you want to set for society. We do this with tricks like graduating citizenship through arbitrary stages, maybe at 13 you can do X, at 18 you can do Y, at 21 you can do Z, and at 35 you can be President, for example. While you have limited citizenship, your parents can ignore many of your civil rights. While you have limited citizenship, the government can also ignore many of your civil rights. While you as a parent have a limited right to violate the civil rights of your children, the government has an obligation to step in if you overstep those bounds (you can't kill your kids.) Additionally, your rights as a parent to violate your children's civil rights are contingent on your obligations as set by the government (you have to feed, shelter, bathe, and educate them.) If you fail to do any of these things to an arbitrary standard, your parental rights will be taken away - which exposes the fact that parental rights are also granted by government. Without government, we don't talk about rights, we talk about abilities. Without government, you'd have the ability to do whatever you wanted with your child because you're larger, and could keep it in a cage. In society, what you can seen by society doing with your child without society intervening is limited, because society has set rules and has the ability to stop you. Finally, society sets arbitrary moral values. You can't sleep with your children even if they agree. A 22-year old can't sleep with a 15-year old. I suspect you agree with all of this, so why glibly pretend the questions are easy? We need to engage with the questions; have more basic principles (than "No one should be able to dictate...") that we can apply to the questions; and to figure out what requires consensus, what requires consent, and who has the right to give that consent.

by hnfong 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

> I suspect part of the reason policies like these have popular support is the twisted idea that I should be able to dictate how you raise your kids... That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids.

filoleg 3y ago
> That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids. The "beating" bit has nothing to do with raising children. It is not ok to beat people in general, so I don't see why one gotta make a special case of "raising kids" when it comes to physical violence. If "beating people" is already illegal (edge cases of self-defense and such obviously apply), then "beating kids" is also illegal. I do think it is a "twisted idea" to dictate how one should raise their kids in all the minor aspects beyond the baseline, and I also believe that beating your own kids is no more ok than beating an adult.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> That's not "twisted idea," unless you think it's OK for parents to beat their kids. > The "beating" bit has nothing to do with raising children. Says you, but historically a lot of parents have disagreed. Statements like the one I quoted in the GP are often revealed to be equivalent to something like "people totally shouldn't be allowed to impose their beliefs about X on others...except for my beliefs, which totally should be imposed on others because I've confused them with the objective laws of nature or something."
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > Says you, but historically a lot of parents have disagreed. Historically, a lot of people disagreed with honor killings being not ok either (and in some regions of the world, they still do). The fact of the matter is, in the present day in western countries, honor killings are illegal and aren't accepted. The history of it is irrelevant, and so is whether the victim of an honor killing is a child or an adult (in terms of qualifying the event as legal/illegal; it might be relevant for the actual sentencing, but I digress). But that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if some action is considered illegal to perform on an adult subject, I would not consider it a "twisted idea of forcing your beliefs about raising children onto others" to think that those actions are illegal as well when the subject is a child. And I am saying this as someone who is very against overbearing and controlling helicopter-parenting, and who is more on the side of giving kids a chance to explore and learn their surroundings by being potentially exposed to a little bit of controlled danger.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > But that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if some action is considered illegal to perform on an adult subject, I would not consider it a "twisted idea of forcing your beliefs about raising children onto others" to think that those actions are illegal as well when the subject is a child. Except that child-rearing involves actions that would be "considered illegal to perform on an adult subject" (e.g. grounding a kid for misbehavior or putting a two-year-old in a time-out would arguably be false imprisonment if applied to an adult). There are necessary exceptions for parent-child relationships, because the latter is immature. Creating a false equivalency between children and adults isn't a valid side-step to salvage that statement about the "twisted idea."

throwaway67743 3y ago

You'd be surprised how prevelant the direct intervention of state is in all aspects of life, even in the "democratic" EU - nobody sees this dictation a problem, but it's especially more acute being Western - especially when looking at central, eastern and Baltic states.

pessimizer 3y ago

> the twisted idea that I should be able to dictate how you raise your kids... This is lazy. Of course society should be able to dictate how you raise your kids to some extent. If somebody starts sleeping with their kids, you don't want society to react to that? Of course you do. So the question is how much society should be dictating how you raise your kids, which isn't an easy question. You have to balance the rights of the parents over the child, the rights of the child as an independent citizen, and, undeniably, the standards you want to set for society. We do this with tricks like graduating citizenship through arbitrary stages, maybe at 13 you can do X, at 18 you can do Y, at 21 you can do Z, and at 35 you can be President, for example. While you have limited citizenship, your parents can ignore many of your civil rights. While you have limited citizenship, the government can also ignore many of your civil rights. While you as a parent have a limited right to violate the civil rights of your children, the government has an obligation to step in if you overstep those bounds (you can't kill your kids.) Additionally, your rights as a parent to violate your children's civil rights are contingent on your obligations as set by the government (you have to feed, shelter, bathe, and educate them.) If you fail to do any of these things to an arbitrary standard, your parental rights will be taken away - which exposes the fact that parental rights are also granted by government. Without government, we don't talk about rights, we talk about abilities. Without government, you'd have the ability to do whatever you wanted with your child because you're larger, and could keep it in a cage. In society, what you can seen by society doing with your child without society intervening is limited, because society has set rules and has the ability to stop you. Finally, society sets arbitrary moral values. You can't sleep with your children even if they agree. A 22-year old can't sleep with a 15-year old. I suspect you agree with all of this, so why glibly pretend the questions are easy? We need to engage with the questions; have more basic principles (than "No one should be able to dictate...") that we can apply to the questions; and to figure out what requires consensus, what requires consent, and who has the right to give that consent.