3 ms·

> 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 regi

> 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

> 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."