Ironic?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by alexandriadeloraine, Aug 24, 2013.

  1. Nameless Wildflower

    Nameless Wildflower Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    New York
    Children are not able to take care of themselves and make their own decisions without some help/guidance. I have a three year and I can't imagine how she would be with "freedom" think Lord Of The Flies but much worse. lol. I do remember a scene from family guy (great reference right?) where Stewie said "Brain we're one if we are given independence we'll die." Now mind you that was meant for toddlers but still children need the guidance of their parents. We just know what is best they are not slaves there are loved and cared for. Most parents try to give their children the best life they can possibly give their children, even better then their own lives. I wouldn't think of a slave owner doing that. My Daughter and my Step-sons are my life I would die for them. Again I doubt a slave owner would do that too. Parents are caregivers trying to give the best that they can for their children.

    Now on to education and I am speaking in the terms of general education and not the state's education because in my opinion it needs some work but that's a whole different topic I don't even want to get into...especially with J.J (name drop) which we have at home. So any way education I feel is a privilege and I am glad that the country we live in provides a fairly good one to it's citizens. It is very easy to access as compared to many third world countries who would give an arm and a leg to have what we have. I do Operation Christmas Child where we fill shoe boxes full of goodies for children in poor countries. The number one thing they love most in their boxes (for the older children at least) is school supplies. I feel like this is a perfect example on how we take education for granted in America.
     
    JJ_Maxx likes this.
  2. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    Did you miss the 'perhaps' in my statement? You said the 'argument doesn't make sense', not 'the argument is illogical' or 'the argument is flawed.' When you say it doesn't make sense, I get the impression that you don't understand the argument, that it is nonsensical to you. Thus, perhaps you should study the matter a bit more and then the argument for / against compulsory schooling will make more sense to you. Whether you agree or disagree is another matter entirely. Does that make sense?

    To JJ;

    Holt didn't necessarily advocate for the removal of parents, just as a note aside.

    No one can deny that children need their parents (or other adults acting in the parental capacity as caretakers), especially very young children and infants. Obviously, it's ludicrous to suggest that infants and young children should simply be left to their own devices because they would largely perish in very short order. A proper solution to ensure that children receive the same inalienable human rights as adults (are supposed to receive) would be rather involved, but the basic premise would be that parents should conduct themselves more as wardens (as in forest wardens vs. prison wardens) and less as owners. Children are, after all, individual and separate from their parents, though they are born dependent. Thus, parents should protect and nurture their children but should veer away from simply demanding obedience or enforcing their authority via manipulation, cajoling, threatening or punishment.

    I could go into much greater detail regarding the various behaviors I regularly see parents demonstrating that I feel fulfill the above criteria, but the truth is that I lack the time or strong inclination to do so. Rest assured, most parents today fail horribly against my criteria for what constitutes proper parenting. I'm not saying they aren't well-intentioned much of the time, but intentions and actions are often worlds apart.

    I raised four of my younger siblings (changed diapers, fed bottles, paid all the bills, bought the clothes, cleaned the vomit, took to the doctors, educated, etc.) and several cousins across 22 years and have worked with and educated dozens of children and adolescents, but maybe the fact that they didn't come out of my vagina makes all the difference in the world. I was also once a child, and with an exceptional memory of events dating back to my infancy, I've got all that experience and knowledge to draw on as well. I'm curious what part of 'all [I'm] saying' it is that you think I wouldn't believe if I 'had children' of my own. Could you be more specific, please?

    To 123456789,

    What gives you the impression that I haven't had a 9 - 5 type of job? -raised eyebrow-

    To everyone else;

    Many of you seem focused on the term slave and its various associated connotations of forced labor, physical abuse, etc. So perhaps I should clarify slightly; when I used the term slave in my OP, I used it in the sense of a human being who is owned by another. Property. Chattel. A belonging. That is, in my view, what many parents treat their children as; they feel like they created the child ('they're my children') and therefore have the right to do as they see fit with them as a result. An extreme example of this kind of attitude can be found in every single case where a parent has killed their child(ren) either to punish their spouse or because they felt entitled to take their child(ren) with them when they committed suicide, etc.

    Indeed, I have even been in debates with parents before where I stated, verbatim, that:

    'I simply think it's wrong to treat a child as a possession or an extension of oneself.'

    The responses I've received have ranged from 'I gotta disagree with you on that', to more extreme statements about how parents absolutely have the right to do whatever they wish with their children.

    Cheers;

    - Alexandria de Loraine
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2013
  3. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,102
    Likes Received:
    4,605
    You said "I mean, how can one hope to teach anyone about true freedom if the individual is manipulated, cajoled, coerced, threatened or otherwise forced to abide by the will and desires of someone else on a daily basis?"

    I'm saying, "that happens even when the child becomes an adult, in most situations at least, if he/she is part of the middle or lower classes."
     
  4. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well, you are now. Before you simply said 'Wait till you get a 9-5 job.'

    I'm not in disagreement with you, though. Most people are, indeed, practically enslaved by their jobs. It's a very unfortunate state for humanity to be in, and one that I think results in large part from the gross overpopulation of our planet, but that's a discussion for another time.

    - Alexandria de Loraine
     
  5. Nameless Wildflower

    Nameless Wildflower Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    New York
    We are talking about children... children who do not know right from wrong, that's not something we already come equipped with that's something you learn, if I am not someone of authority to my how will I be able to teach these lessons? After all if my child is equal to me how will they listen to me if they hit some kid on the playground because they wanted to be the only one to go down the slide and I tell them it's not ok to hit? I don't have a right to give my child a time out to teach them that it is wrong and to think about how they made the other child feel? Isn't a Forrest Warden an authority figure? If A Forrest Warden tells me not to light a fire in the woods, shouldn't I listen to him?
     
  6. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    Blind obedience is what children need to do when they are relying on the wisdom and experience of a parent. If a child disobeys their parents, they are engaging in a behavior that is not acceptable for a reason. We try and teach them why it's not okay to do those things but we also teach them that there are consequences to their actions. This is the same in real life.

    When children hit another child, they get punished so that they learn that when they assault another person in adulthood, they get arrested. Our job as parents is to prepare the children for life as adults, not to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
     
    Nameless Wildflower likes this.
  7. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ahem, aside from the fact that I strongly disagree regarding children's ability to discern right from wrong... Where have I said that parents should not be in a position of authority over their child(ren)? o_O

    'If a child disobeys a parent...' That's a pretty strong statement there, JJ. Consider the following: a husband and wife have two children, A and B. The husband is violently assaulting child A and the mother orders child B not to intervene. Child B intervenes to stop the assault on A, thus acting in disobedience of the mother. Do you honestly consider child B's disobedience to be a behavior that is unacceptable, and if so, for what reason?

    Once again, I will ask: where have I said that a parent should not have authority over their child(ren)?

    So far I've simply said that:

    - It's wrong to treat a child as a possession or extension of oneself, and;
    - Authority over children should not be enforced via means of punishment, coercion, manipulation or threatening. (And here, I will add that there is a great difference between repercussions based on logical cause and effect vs. punitive punishments dealt out as a result of, or a deterrent against, disobedience.)

    - Alexandria de Loraine
     
  8. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    Well, what does it mean to have authority?

    According to the dictionary it's, 'the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.'

    It sounds very much like you are contradicting yourself when you say that parents should have authority, but not perform the actions that authority requires.


    This is just a silly statement, I just assumed that everyone in this thread understood that we're talking about parents enforcing positive social actions and not child abuse. I don't think anyone is insinuating that a child should obey their parents if they tell the child to murder their neighbors.

    But again, a child may not understand why they should go to bed at nine o'clock or not drink too many sugary soft drinks or not wear certain types of clothing, but the mature, responsible parent has more wisdom and experience and the child sometimes have to just do what the parents say because they are looking out for their best interests. This is called parenting. And when children refuse to obey their parents, they should be punished either by time out, spanking, etc.

    There are a lot of liberal people out there that want to re-invent parenting, when it was never broken to begin with.

    Again, I showed above where your apparent fallacy is located.
     
  9. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    What actions are you referring to? The actions I have cited are manipulation, coercion, threatening and punishment. With the possible exception of punishment, I would think it's reasonable to say that parents (and other authority figures) should not rely on manipulating, coercing or threatening children in order to enforce their authority. I have personally been an authority figure over many children, and I've never had to manipulate, coerce, or threaten them to enforce my authority or to attain desired behaviors.

    As far as the second statement, you evidently assumed incorrectly. The example I gave is an extreme, but the point is that parents (and often other authority figures) often want their children to be obedient to rules and demands that are irrational, illogical, or otherwise unjust.

    Consider another example: a child is an avid reader and loves books. The child maintains good grades, has several friends and is well behaved by all classic standards (doesn't assault other children, doesn't scream or throw fits, doesn't want to eat candy all day or watch TV 24/7, does the chores assigned to them, etc.) but the parents think the child reads too much. The child is ordered by its parents to put the books away and to read less. The parents literally have no other reason for wanting the child to read less, it's purely their opinion that the child reads too much. If the child disobeys and continues to read as avidly as before, is the child behaving in a way that is not acceptable for a reason?

    If it helps to know, both of the situations I have outlined actually happened.

    Finally, there is something very telling near the end of your post. You stated that, 'a child may not understand...' and behold, you are correct. Oftentimes, children do not understand the reason(s) why they must or must not do certain things. It has been my experience, however, that this lack of understanding is easily overcome when one simply takes a few minutes to educate the child and help them to understand.

    Take another real-life example: a child loves junk food, the very unhealthy kinds, he's eaten it for 3 years. The parents tell the child that 'junk food is bad for him.' Still, he loves that junk food and wants to eat more of it. The child does not understand why the junk food is bad for them, because the parents have not explained. Instead, the parents have made a blanket statement and then sought to obtain blind obedience from their child without actually explaining anything. I sit down with the same child for 5 minutes and explain how eating too much junk food can be unhealthy, how it can lead to obesity, and how it can shorten your lifespan (and not in a scare tactic type way, or anything of the sort).

    Miraculously enough, that child loses all interest in junk food, despite the fact that it tastes as good as it ever did. The child was 4 1/2 years old at the time, he is now 10 (almost 11) and he's barely touched junk food since that day. I didn't have to threaten, coerce or manipulate him into obedience; once he understood why the junk food was bad for him, he wanted to stay away from it (and he actually started to take a great interest in the kinds of food his parents bought, but that's another tangent).

    Hopefully that clarifies some points.

    - Alexandria de Loraine
     
  10. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    Oh ho ho, another thing that one of you mentioned in an example: punishing a child for hitting another child in order to prepare them for the adult world where they will be arrested if they assault another person.

    This seems to rely on striking fear into the child. You punish the youngster for the unwanted behavior, thus hoping that they will fear being punished again in the future and thus will avoid the behavior (in this case, hitting) that got them punished. Say that you succeed, that the child fears the punishment so much that they don't hit anyone again. What happens if the threat of punishment is removed, though (either during childhood, or later as an adult)? Unless the child has, at some point, come to understand why it is wrong to assault another person, what happens when the threat of punishment is removed? Presumably the child (or adult) will resume freely assaulting others as they see fit, since the motivation for their good behavior has been removed.

    In many ways, I feel that a number of you are making my point for me, however inadvertently. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for harmful behaviors (i.e. punishments), but a repercussion or punishment without an explanation / an attempt to educate the child as to why their action is wrong will only (at best) breed obedience out of fear of punishment. Thus, as soon as the motivating factor behind the obedience is removed, the child will revert to the unwanted behavior(s).

    Does that seem cogent enough?

    - Alexandria de Loraine
     
  11. JJ_Maxx

    JJ_Maxx Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    503
    As a society, we set limits on when others can over-ride parental authority to raise their children how they see fit. Mostly, this involves child abuse and actions that are permanently detrimental to a child. Then the government will step in and remove those parents from their responsibilities.

    Other than that, it is up to the parents to decide how to raise the children. Yes, reading is good, but anything in excess can be detrimental. If the parents tell the child to read less, they should obey their parents. Our children have been taught to only reply with, 'Yes, dad.' or 'Yes, mom.' when they are told to do something. They have been taught to obey and respect their parents and not to talk back.

    I feel at this point you are backing off of some of your previous statements regarding punishment.

    The point is that the parents are in charge of the children for 16-18 years. Unless they are beating their children or doing anything else illegal, other people have no right to tell them how to do it.
     
  12. alexandriadeloraine

    alexandriadeloraine Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    5
    JJ;

    Nope, not backing off, although I'm curious what statements you are referring to. I've only been clarifying, since others seem keen to make false implications about what I think.

    So, do I understand you correctly that you think a child (even up to age 16 - 18?) has no right to self-determination if their choices or will conflicts with what their parents desire? Indeed, do you think children have any rights other than the right not to be beaten or molested?

    Considering the reading example again, do you know what the parents preferred their child do? Play sports and video games or watch TV shows, because they (the parents) deemed those to be more 'normal' activities. Also, please define excess. This child read in their free time, after homework, chores and playing with their friends and siblings. This was not a disobedient child, nor were the books just trashy pulp fiction, ergo I think the child had a right to self-determination when it came to how to spend their free time. A younger sibling of this child remained illiterate up to the age of 12, by the way.

    You didn't answer my question about actions, but I suppose that doesn't matter.

    Judging by your statements and how you say you parent your own children, I'm guessing that this conversation isn't going to lead anywhere terribly productive. I am an ardent advocate for inalienable human rights, and I think children have much greater rights to self-determination than they are generally afforded. As far as I see it, parents and society ignore and/or trample upon the rights of children at their own peril.

    - Alexandria de Loraine

    P.S. This thread has grown quite a bit from my original (and intended to be rather humorous) query about whether others considered two things ironic.
     
  13. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    I don't know if parents in general rely on these things, as parenting is made of several things, isn't it? Unless there's something wrong in the parents' heads, they are also kind in addition to being less kind when their kid is stepping on their toes.

    It's pretty common to say to one's kid "you're not leaving the table until that plate is clean" or "you don't get to go out before you've done your homework." I see no problem in that, even though that sounds like coercion.

    Manipulation? There are many ways to manipulate a kid, and if it's not utterly malicious (I think we can tell when a parent takes it too far), it's no biggie to me to use some reverse psych to get your kid to do the chores.

    Threatening can also be taken too far, but it's pretty normal for a parent to say
    "if your grades don't improve, you're not getting that bike." Of course it's probably better to say "improve your grades, and you'll get a bike." Or is "bribery" wrong too?

    I wonder how troublesome the kids you raised really were? You probably had to step on their rights too, whatever you define as ther rights.
    There's this article series going on in a local newspaper about kids who've ended on the fringes of our society, and they often blame too lax parenting; they actually wish their parents had been more authorative, even that their mom had smacked them upside the head when they did stupid stuff -- because the kids didn't know how stupid it was; they can't see the big picture as they lack life experience. Kids don't always know this stuff, what's right, what's wrong, and the parent is there to guide them, right?

    Now with kids like myself, or my brother, our parents had it pretty easy, we were real angels and caused little to no trouble. Now, with a kid like how my husband was, he sure was a wildchild... Good thing he had a tough dad!

    This is a rather sweeping statement. Which society? Which social class? Which parents? There are so many ways to raise a child, and seemingly the way you raised your siblings and cousins differs to a degree from how JJ and Wildflower raise theirs -- but I bet neither of these ways rely on manipulation, coercion, threatening and punishment. I'm quite sure both of your kids will and have turned all right nonetheless. Anyway, of which rights are you talking about?
    These?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights
    It's another thing to argue for youth rights, see, eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_rights_movement

    But the latter is another discussion.

    Anyway, I still see no irony, really, not even in a humorous sense, because the rights between adults and children are different and the freedoms they enjoy are different too. Of course in schools this distinction should be made, and often is made.
     
  14. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    real freedom is an illusion at best.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  15. Selbbin

    Selbbin The Moderating Cat Staff Contributor Contest Winner 2023

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,160
    Likes Received:
    4,243
    Location:
    Australia
    hey. wait a sec. what the farq is wrong with a job stacking shelves? you think that happens by itself? why is that a point on doubting the education system? we cant all be farqing useless lawyers.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  16. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    750
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    I don't have kids of my own (I'm only 13) but I've been helping in day care since I was 9, so kids are second nature to me.

    But here's the thing: if we let young children do whatever they wanna do, it's not gonna turn out well. So, you, as the parent need to start being an actual parent. But you can not have a lot of arguments, say, about mealtime, by serving healthy food from the start. Then, usually, the child will eat a lot of what is put in front of him.

    When a 9-year-old is bullying another child, should I turn a blind eye, because it would be "infringing on the bully's rights"? Does the bully have a right to bully? Is that what you are trying to say?

    Does a child of 3 have the right to choose whether or not she goes to preschool? Does a child who cannot possibly read have the right to decide? Would it be infringing on her rights if the parents chose for her?

    Children have rights. They have rights to not being abused (psychically, sexually, emotionally, or verbally), they have the right to go to school (surprise, surprise!), and they have a right to nutrious food, wearable clothing approiate for the weather, and a place to sleep and store their belongings. Many kids don't get that.

    So, if you are an "advocate for human rights" as you say, why don't you try helping the 17 million children IN THIS NATION ALONE, who suffer from hunger. Or the tens of millions more children worldwide.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice