3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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."

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."