[Daktoria]

...so I was arguing with some conservatives earlier about family values and how modern conservatism seems to sell itself out by not teaching children social values just so parents can be workaholics. They were saying that children should be treated like property because children can't be "forced" into existence since they didn't previously exist. Therefore, if a parent wants to treat a child like crap with tough punishment in forcing a child to learn from experience, so be it.

I was really shocked that they were so blunt about this. They also didn't care about how different parents can parent their children differently, and therefore, those children can come away with different social values such that a conflict of interest arises when different children grow up. Tough children with tough parents, and soft children with soft parents, will grow up aggressive. Tough children with soft parents, and soft children with tough parents, will grow up reserved.

The implication is a society where different adults have different interpretations of "respect". Aggressive children grow up to believe that people innately pressure one another. Reserved children grow up to believe that people innately admit one another. When pressure and admission come together, that leads to misunderstandings in how people should exercise manners...

...so I pushed the envelope and asked about abortion. How could someone who tolerates aggressive parenting see a problem with abortion? After all, aggressive parenting doesn't see a problem with pressuring or forcing people to learn from experience. Anyone who can't endure pressure is simply forgotten on the basis of natural selection.

The response I got was laughter, and I actually persuaded a few conservatives on accident to believe that abortion was OK. They took the "property" concept to heart, and figured it's fine since the preborn haven't achieved geographic or economic independence.

Fucking hell.

[Social_Critic]

Dude you must have a 200 IQ to figure all that stuff out. But you also got really lucky you were talking to very honest conservatives....or you happen to be Company President and CFO and they were just going along hoping for a raise.

[MichaelHands]

They were saying that children should be treated like property because children can't be "forced" into existence since they didn't previously exist. Therefore, if a parent wants to treat a child like crap with tough punishment in forcing a child to learn from experience, so be it.

But children can be forced into existence; in fact, that's the only way they can come into existence. It's the conscious effort of two parents that bring about children. When someone consciously, much less purposely, brings something into existence, we usually think they bear a greater responsibility for the thing's welfare than if it had come about by other means. For example, a man who breeds a dog then kills it because of its barking is guilty of a more grievous offense than the man who kills a stray dog for the same reason. This suggests that a special obligation exists on the part of the person that caused the thing to exist because they caused the thing to exist. I believe this analogy is no less true of parents' relationships to the welfare of their children. By virtue of having brought them into existence, it's incumbent on parents to look after their children's welfare even to the detriment of their own.

[Social_Critic]

You too got the 200 IQ award. I feel like I'm living in the times of mental giants. Now all you got to do is figure out what do we do with social conservatives who want us to live by their rules even if they are inspired by religion and not by common sense?

[Daktoria]

But children can be forced into existence; in fact, that's the only way they can come into existence. It's the conscious effort of two parents that bring about children. When someone consciously, much less purposely, brings something into existence, we usually think they bear a greater responsibility for the thing's welfare than if it had come about by other means. For example, a man who breeds a dog then kills it because of its barking is guilty of a more grievous offense than the man who kills a stray dog for the same reason. This suggests that a special obligation exists on the part of the person that caused the thing to exist because they caused the thing to exist. I believe this analogy is no less true of parents' relationships to the welfare of their children. By virtue of having brought them into existence, it's incumbent on parents to look after their children's welfare even to the detriment of their own.

That's what I said, but they thought it went the other way. They said that because parents are the material necessity of children that children are obligated to serve them. Otherwise, children are unappreciative.

I compared that to Stockholm Syndrome where hostages are expected to love their abductors, but they just laughed.

__________

You too got the 200 IQ award. I feel like I'm living in the times of mental giants. Now all you got to do is figure out what do we do with social conservatives who want us to live by their rules even if they are inspired by religion and not by common sense?

These were non-religious conservatives who claimed common sense on their side.

I'm not religious either, but I understand that people are abstract, self-forming actors, not biological robots.

[joeylyrics]

I come from an old Italian upbringing to where before I was able to walk or talk I was taught respect.
Didn't take me long to determine the difference between right and wrong for I was showed it in ways that would be highly illegal today.
I am so greatful and fortunate to have had a loving father who cared enough about me to throw me through a wall or crack me upside my head everytime I was dumb enough to do something extremely stupid.
A swollen lip and a black eye that I certainly DESERVED always made me think twice about doing something that I know I shouldn't even when I really wanted to.
Parents should teach their children from an early age that a death penalty certainly does exist (even if it really doesn't) and that the 2x4 hanging in the garage with their name on it should be the constant reminder of what line not to cross.
When a parent becomes afraid to reprimand their child because the law prohibits it... it ONLY teaches them that their kids now have the upper hand in their household.
What messages are we sending the youth of today by showing them there's no consequences for their overly bad behavior?
How far will these kids be willing to go when they know that they won't even be getting a slap on their little wrist no matter what it was they've done wrong?
What will they grow up to be if we easily let them get away with just about everything and anything?
Wait... let me guess...
Lyin' Lawyers and Back Stabbin' Politicians.
Ahh... that explains why the world is full of them.


As far as the abortion issue is concerned...
If people who tell other people they need to have their baby... then THESE people need to FULLY pay for those other people's child's expenses OR just mind their own damn business and keep their big, hypocritical mouths shut all together.
By the way... isn't the world already overpopulated enough as it is?

.


.

[Daktoria]

I come from an old Italian upbringing to where before I was able to walk or talk I was taught respect.
Didn't take me long to determine the difference between right and wrong for I was showed it in ways that would be highly illegal today.
I am so greatful and fortunate to have had a loving father who cared enough about me to throw me through a wall or crack me upside my head everytime I was dumb enough to do something extremely stupid.
A swollen lip and a black eye that I certainly DESERVED always made me think twice about doing something that I know I shouldn't even when I really wanted to.
Parents should teach their children from an early age that a death penalty certainly does exist (even if it really doesn't) and that the 2x4 hanging in the garage with their name on it should be the constant reminder of what line not to cross.
When a parent becomes afraid to reprimand their child because the law prohibits it ONLY teaches them that their kids now have the upper hand in their household.
What messages are we sending the youth of today by showing them there's no consequences for their overly bad behavior?
How far will these kids be willing to go when they know that they won't even be getting a slap on their little wrist no matter what it was they've done wrong?
What will they grow up to be if we easily let them get away with just about everything and anything?
Wait... let me guess...
Lyin' Lawyers and Back Stabbin' Politicians.
Ahh... that explains why the world is full of them.


As far as the abortion issue is concerned...
If people who tell other people they need to have their baby... then THESE people need to FULLY pay for those other people's child's expenses OR just mind their own damn business and keep their big, hypocritical mouths shut all together.
By the way... isn't the world already overpopulated enough as it is?
.

This is the exact position I encountered before, anti-social as can be.

[Rei Murasame]

I hate to say this, Joeylyrics, but your father was a dangerous child abuser and ought not to have been placed anywhere near a child, at any point ever.

This is astounding:

throw me through a wall or crack me upside my head

A swollen lip and a black eye

2x4 hanging in the garage

I can't think of a developed country where that sort of behaviour is legal.

[Daktoria]

Lots of Italian Americans were traumatized by the social gospel in America. When you're told to forsaken organic family values in exchange for health care, social work, and education, you become a workaholic.

In turn, the attention you dedicate to your children becomes strained, and the physical way of making a living leaks into family life itself. People can only think so much, so when they're always thinking about their job, they never think about their family.

[Rei Murasame]

You're not claiming that child abuse is linked to the provision of social services, right? I read your post several times, but it keeps looking like that is what you're saying.

[Daktoria]

Well you tell me. If parents know that their children will be taken care of in case they fall through the cracks, why would they uphold due diligence in making sure children are socially assimilated?

Consider a competitive labor market if you want. Workers aim to prove their worth to their employers, public or private, as much as possible. With social services available, that means they can slack off at home just to work harder.

[joeylyrics]

[quote="Rei Murasame"]I hate to say this, Joeylyrics, but your father was a dangerous child abuser and ought not to have been placed anywhere near a child, at any point ever.



Rei...

My father wasn't a child abuser by any means.
He never went out of his way to scold us unless we truely deserved it.
Respect was a HUGE thing amongst our household and so was NOT disgracing the family name.
I was raised to keep my nose clean and my judgment sharp.
If a black eye and a bloody nose or even half of a swollen face kept me alive and out of prison... then my father had done one hell of a job. (Which He Certainly Did)
I am now reaching my middle 40's.
When I went to high school... the teachers were also allowed to forcefully take you down and smack you around if needed be.
I don't know how old you truely are or what country you're from... but America's policies are a lot different now then what they were over 25 years ago.
Our country is becoming more and more lenient each day to where those who enjoy doing wrong by wrongdoing others have more rights than the righteous guy who lives to be honest.
Anyone who was raised the way I was in a time when it was completely normal to be physically punished for your tasteless actions will also agree that it IS and always will be the BEST method with the highest percentage rate of success.
Ever since the politicians realized that crime creates revenue and more government jobs... smacking some sense back into your "out of control kid" wasn't really allowed anymore.
They too know the children are our future.
Corrupting them now ensures them of a comfortable life for tomorrow.
No wonder why they also want to put a stop to abortion.
They don't want to miss out on even one little stinkin' dime.
Greedy Bastards.








.

[Rei Murasame]

Well you tell me. If parents know that their children will be taken care of in case they fall through the cracks, why would they uphold due diligence in making sure children are socially assimilated?

Are you really saying that you think that an abusive parent would become less abusive if the state decided to stop caring about what happens to children? You know that's not going to happen!

He never went out of his way to scold us unless we truely deserved it.

That's in your opinion, but you must accept that there is a very easy to see line between being scolded for doing wrong, and having him physically attack you.

Ever since the politicians realized that crime creates revenue and more government jobs... smacking some sense back into your "out of control kid" wasn't really allowed anymore.

No, it is a fact that physically punishing a child only results in immediate compliance (because a child doesn't want to be hit and will do anything to make the attacker stop), but in the medium and longterm, it has no effect because they haven't actually learned anything from it.

A lot of the serious criminals that the Americans have had to deal with over the past few decades were certainly subject to corporal punishment and abuse, and that didn't stop them from becoming criminals anyway, did it?

Any parent that has to literally attack and injure their own child in order to get immediate compliance, has already failed at parenting from the start, because any parent who is raising children correctly should not even have to encounter such a scenario in the first place.

I don't know how old you truely are or what country you're from... but America's policies are a lot different now then what they were over 25 years ago.

Anglo-Japanese, age 26, United Kingdom.

You say that the policies were different in the USA over 25 years ago, but no matter what their policy was, if your parent was punching you in the face on a frequent basis, that is child abuse by any measure in any country at almost any time.

[Daktoria]

Are you really saying that you think that an abusive parent would become less abusive if the state decided to stop caring about what happens to children? You know that's not going to happen!

If the State cared about what happens to children, it would require present children to graduate a rite of passage, demonstrating philosophical maturity across all learning styles before allowing them to become future parents.

Many parents are racist in believing that just because they have certain personalities that their children will automatically follow. They forget about recessive genes which should be obvious given the synthetic nature of reproduction. Parents are synthesized from grandparents, children are synthesized from parents. Therefore, personalities are founded from a combination, not mere transition, of ancestry.

For example, say you have two parents with personalities based on the above link. One is half-accommodating, half-assimilating. The other is half-diverging, half-assimilating.

Accommodating and diverging are physical learning styles, so they're dominant and block out the assimilating style.

Still, it's possible for a future child to randomly receive assimilating style from both halves.

If said parents aren't graduated through a rite of passage, then they'll be psychologically biased, neglecting the assmilating style.

Social work, education, and health care don't process this. They merely respond to, rather than anticipate, problems, forcing children to assume the risk of having their time, energy, and attention wasted.

[joeylyrics]

Rei...

Let's get something totally straight right here and right now...
A back hand to the side of the head is NOT the same as a punch in the face.
Only having this happen to me "once in a while" on behalf of my own stupidity was HARDLY on a frequent basis.
My father never attacked me or seriously injured me to where I needed medical attention.
If that would have been the case... then I would certainly see your point.
For every time my father did raise his hands to me...
I DESERVED IT.
And if I was dumb enough to not learn my lesson the first time and continued to go against my father's rules and wishes in his own house... the YES... I deserved it twice as hard the next time.
My father NEVER enjoyed hitting me or even yelling at me... but in order to teach me my much needed common sense at the time in my life when I WAS a young and stupid PUNK ass kid... he came to my rescue.
If he HADN'T done what he did and would've rather stayed home and smoked crack or get drunk all day long to where he DIDN'T CARE AT ALL about where I was at and what I was doing with my adolescent life... then I'd either be DEAD or still in PRISON.
A 26 year old girl is QUITE YOUNG to think she knows it all.




.

[Pants-of-dog]

In all of my years parenting, I have never hit a child, nor have I ever needed to.

[joeylyrics]

In all of my years parenting, I have never hit a child, nor have I ever needed to.

Pants of dog...

Good for you.
I'm glad your puppies were smart enough to not go and run with the Pitt Bulls.
Nice to see they stayed on their own side of the tracks enclosed in their own fenced yard.
Guess they never had the urge to try and dig their way out for their own taste of the real world.
Maybe you just raised them in a town to where there was nothing to do or any trouble to get into even if they were to escape.
If that's the case...
I'd be sure to bet they lack their much needed street smarts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you always make so many unfounded assumptions?

My children are growing up as I did: close enough to downtown that I can easily walk there, in a neighbourhood where I can buy bagels and lattés at three in the morning. Where kids grow up has very little to do with it.

[joeylyrics]

Do you always make so many unfounded assumptions?

My children are growing up as I did: close enough to downtown that I can easily walk there, in a neighbourhood where I can buy bagels and lattés at three in the morning. Where kids grow up has very little to do with it.

P.o.d.

I, like SOME men... can only ASSUME what I TRY and forsee.
My scale though... tends to tip towards the side that's the most probable rather than the one that can't possibly be accurate OR make ANY sense.
My assumptions regarding how I "think" it might have been in "your" household under "your roof and rules" ONLY came from what little information I had.
A mere "GUESS"
Yes... I'm guilty.

I grew up on the streeds of Brooklyn before moving to Long Island.
There is NO WAY that being raised in the CITY rather than coming from the sticks of the SOUTH can have the same effects and influences in a childs learning ability.
Some parents are VERY fortunate their children are perfect little angels and can easily stay that way for eternity... HOWEVER...
Others are living in a nightmare from the chaos their kids keep causing and causing and mainly because their parents keep letting them get away with it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
Maybe EVERYONE needs a splintery 2x4 with their name on it.
It should NEVER be too late for the classroom doors to re-open and be reminded of ones well over due history lesson in "RESPECT -101".
There are some adults I know who need to be shown it over and over and over again UNTIL they either
Get It... or wake up in some hospital covered in black and blues while making the news.
Most Politicians also get my vote.

[Pants-of-dog]

You sure write a lot without saying anything important.

I can't think of any reason why a parent should hit a child.