Parents controlling kids

[gela]

Why shouldn't parents have complete control over their children's belief system? One of the many roles of parents is to pass on a system of beliefs to their children - whether the beliefs of their religion, their culture, or their nation.

Kids should be exposed to other beliefs and other cultures.
Otherwise they will never understand other beliefs and cultures.
It breeds misunderstanding, and ignorant hatred against people not like 'us'.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: gela Kids should be exposed to other beliefs and other cultures. Otherwise they will never understand other beliefs and cultures. It breeds misunderstanding, and ignorant hatred against people not like 'us'.

Well said, although you can't say "never" understand--they may understand later if they really make an attempt--it will just be a lot harder.

[JaneDoe321]

I sort of feel like I am "innoculating" my kids against religion by exposing them to "vaccinations" or small doses of various religions, followed by a whole lot of discussion (and believe it or not, there's not a lot of "Look at those morons" in those discussions, we actually compare the recent experience to others, and see how much everybody has in common and why it's silly for everybody to be arguing when they all boil down to the same thing... )

Maybe I should rephrase. I'm not innoculating them against "religion" as a whole. I am trying to provide a basis for them to have a better shot at not getting sucked into some brain-washing style of religion because it catches them completely off guard.

I think as a whole, that parents who try to completely shelter their kids from the world do them a *grave grave* disservice. They're going to run into a lot of things once they leave our "domain".

I still think that should be a judicious process. Actually, from a strictly legal standpoint, that NEEDS to be a cautious process, as I don't really want to go to jail just because I said "To hell with it, learn from the school of hard knocks! Best of luck, kids!" (not that I would anyway, I think that's a ludicrous method)

[grandpa]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I sort of feel like I am "innoculating" my kids against religion by exposing them to "vaccinations" or small doses of various religions, followed by a whole lot of discussion (and believe it or not, there's not a lot of "Look at those morons" in those discussions, we actually compare the recent experience to others, and see how much everybody has in common and why it's silly for everybody to be arguing when they all boil down to the same thing... ) Maybe I should rephrase.

I think Religion and Ethics should be taught that way. Of course, there is no purely objective way to do it. You'd have to decide, for example, whether or not to to discuss the alleged compatability of Scientology with various religions. The point is, people will see it differently.

If I were a parent, I'd explain that religion occurs basically because certain beliefs and traditions are so tight.

Grandpa h.

[JaneDoe321]

Actually the comon answer to the "why does religion exist" question is.... people needed to figure out why things happened, and they didn't know how to figure it out so they made up stories... and then some people learned that sometimes they could make other people do things their way if they told the stories certain ways, and sometimes that was an ok thing and sometimes it was a really bad thing... (See, usually yhat question comes up about age 5, when they start school and get slammed in the face with the insane amount of Christianity floating around in the schools...so obviously it's a rather simplistic discussion when it first comes up)

I will say I can see how "controlling what your kids think" especially in the way of continuing the "Controlling Father Figure" god story could appeal... I mean, I DO know people who use varying degrees of "God is watching" to get their kids to clean their rooms, walk the dog, do their homework, stop picking on their little sister, etc etc. I just think that's a) a cop out and b) eventually going to backfire. Plus it never gets to the "why" of "Why don't we treat each other like this?" (Like I said, there's a time and a place for "because I said so" but if it's the only tool in the toolbox that's a problem).

[Fangrim]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I sort of feel like I am "innoculating" my kids against religion by exposing them to "vaccinations" or small doses of various religions, followed by a whole lot of discussion (and believe it or not, there's not a lot of "Look at those morons" in those discussions, we actually compare the recent experience to others, and see how much everybody has in common and why it's silly for everybody to be arguing when they all boil down to the same thing... ) Maybe I should rephrase. I'm not innoculating them against "religion" as a whole. I am trying to provide a basis for them to have a better shot at not getting sucked into some brain-washing style of religion because it catches them completely off guard. I think as a whole, that parents who try to completely shelter their kids from the world do them a *grave grave* disservice. They're going to run into a lot of things once they leave our "domain". I still think that should be a judicious process. Actually, from a strictly legal standpoint, that NEEDS to be a cautious process, as I don't really want to go to jail just because I said "To hell with it, learn from the school of hard knocks! Best of luck, kids!" (not that I would anyway, I think that's a ludicrous method)

I like the comparison to inoculation.

Big props for that.

As to whether we SHOULD "inoculate" them, I hold no opinion. But nice analogy.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: chancellor You think that parents are obligated to explain to you the reasons for their decrees as if you are either equal to them or superior to them. You had better get that notion out of your head right now! You are someday going to be an adult and, hopefully, are going to get a job. Your boss is going to assign tasks to you and is going to expect you to do them. If you try asking your boss why you should do that task, you're very likely going to be fired for insubordination.

So we can question government, but not our boss or parents, both of which are just as fallible. Plus, only crappy bosses don't explain their motivations and fire people for asking why. Bosses should be looking for people who will ask why. Shows interest in the work.

Government isn't going to explain to you why you should obey its laws.

What law has come without an explanation attached that wasn't blindingly obvious in the first place? (Like the law against murder really doesn't need to be explained.)

If you serve in the military, your superiors aren't likely to explain to you why you should obey a particular order.

That's a matter of time and efficiency. This one isn't a problem. However, when not in a job with potentially life and death situations, there is the time to ask why.

You may not like it but that's one of life's realities. Those in any kind of authority over you are not accountable to you and have no obligation whatsoever to explain to you their decisions and commands.

First off, isn't the Libertarian view that those in authority over you in the political sense are absolutely accountable to the people?

Second off, those in power are not obligated to tell you why or let you ask, however the smart bosses are the ones who tell you why and let you ask. It's useful, and efficiant as well as effective in stopping small misunderstandings. I don't see why you shouldn't ask if it isn't clear (other then in the army or while testing a bomb or something. Even then, you should at least vaguely know why)

Two year-olds are people too!

Really? I thought they were Chrysanthemums. Of course two year olds are people. They should have some kind of rights. Ya, the parents should have power over them, but to what extent?

Quote by: janedoe Yes. Explanations are absolutely a good thing. And there is a time, and a place. And if my kid is doing something which poses an absolute emergency risk of death or whatever, I amnnot going to stop and have the "But Why?" conversation... hell, sometimes I'm not even going to have the "but why?" conversation just because they're using it SOLELY to prolong their bedtime, chores, etc. or because I have other priorities at that given moment.

I agree, however, you should have the but why conversation just once. The reasons can be explained once. After that, "because I said so" works fine.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind So we can question government, but not our boss or parents, both of which are just as fallible.

I believe those are sometimes called "social conservatives."

There are plenty of views and groups we are not supposed to question. And plenty of people listen, often for the worse. Over time, many neglect to ask basic questions about identity, many of which may have common answers that could unify everyone better.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind So we can question government

In a free society, we have a civic duty to question government.

[quote], but not our boss or parents, both of which are just as fallible.[/quote}Bosses have nothing to do with this discussion. As for parents, no, children should not be questioning their parents' authority.

Plus, only crappy bosses don't explain their motivations and fire people for asking why. Bosses should be looking for people who will ask why. Shows interest in the work.

You don't have much work experience, do you? Of course, your silly notions may have to do with generational differences more than anything else.

Mixing and Managing Four Generations of Employees
Generational differences at work
Can You Manage Different Generations? - HBS Working Knowledge

But perhaps that's the subject for another thread.

What law has come without an explanation attached that wasn't blindingly obvious in the first place? (Like the law against murder really doesn't need to be explained.)

Many.

That's a matter of time and efficiency. This one isn't a problem. However, when not in a job with potentially life and death situations, there is the time to ask why.

I think you're confusing the questioning of process with the questioning of authority.

First off, isn't the Libertarian view that those in authority over you in the political sense are absolutely accountable to the people?

See above.

Second off, those in power are not obligated to tell you why or let you ask, however the smart bosses are the ones who tell you why and let you ask. It's useful, and efficiant as well as effective in stopping small misunderstandings. I don't see why you shouldn't ask if it isn't clear (other then in the army or while testing a bomb or something. Even then, you should at least vaguely know why)

With regard to government, we do have the right to ask but the government is not obligated to answer.

Really? I thought they were Chrysanthemums. Of course two year olds are people. They should have some kind of rights. Ya, the parents should have power over them, but to what extent?

Why should two year-olds have rights beyond having their basic needs met (food, clothing, shelter, safety, etc.)? They certainly can't make decisions for themselves. The point is that it is not a child's place to challenge his parents' sovereignty over him.

[Anmon]

Myself being a firm patriarch, like the romans way of dealing with domestic issues in the house, which was the father had total control over his wife and kids, and if they displeased him, he could kill them all, and not be held to account for his actions by any other person.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon Myself being a firm patriarch, like the romans way of dealing with domestic issues in the house, which was the father had total control over his wife and kids, and if they displeased him, he could kill them all, and not be held to account for his actions by any other person.

It's true that some families function like a totalitarian cult, and, as usual, in the name of protection.

Grandpa h.

[Sorreltail]

It doesn't matter if a child is a child .. they should not be controlled at all.

[Anmon]

Quote by: grandpa It's true that some families function like a totalitarian cult, and, as usual, in the name of protection. Grandpa h.

Agreed, the romans were a tough people because they were a patriarchy, you learn to think quicker around men, and act more decisively in a logical manner, whereas if you are bought up by women, their many fears and insecurity's, not to mention their irrational way of looking at life, becomes a weakness in your character.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Sorreltail It doesn't matter if a child is a child .. they should not be controlled at all.

Not controlled, more like guided.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: chancellor In a free society, we have a civic duty to question government.

Why? Why can't government just do what it thinks is best for us? After all, they are professionals and you did choose the people at the top. The government has more experience at leading the country then you do so why does the government have to answer questions when the people will probably not understand the answer the way they do?

This is related.

Many.

I need more then just "many". Like which ones?

I think you're confusing the questioning of process with the questioning of authority.

Are we allowed to question the process of our parents?

Why should two year-olds have rights beyond having their basic needs met (food, clothing, shelter, safety, etc.)? They certainly can't make decisions for themselves. The point is that it is not a child's place to challenge his parents' sovereignty over him.

Ah, but what is the extent of that sovereignty?

And disobeying your parents can be ok. If the parent tells you to stay put in a parking garage, then go away to shop. It would be ignore the order if a car comes sliding towards you.

That example makes it cut and dry, however, there are less cut and dry examples.

How about a parent who only lets their kid leave the house to play with friends if they got all A's that semester? What about a child who isn't allowed to be friends with someone who isn't Christian? Or if there is a divorce?

These are all realistic questions that show there is a gray area where parents should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves? or should they just do what their parents told them to do "because they said so"?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind Why? Why can't government just do what it thinks is best for us? After all, they are professionals and you did choose the people at the top. The government has more experience at leading the country then you do so why does the government have to answer questions when the people will probably not understand the answer the way they do?

Oh, please! Tell me you really don't believe that nonsense! The government does what it thinks is best for us????? Wrong! The government does what it thinks is best for government. And if you think that the warmonger currently in the White House is a professional or that these clowns in Congress are professionals, you should be slapped silly by every real professional for insulting them.

This is related.

What is related?



I need more then just "many". Like which ones?

Are we allowed to question the process of our parents?

That depends on your purpose in questioning and, with children, it's usually an attempt to question parental authority and to get out of doing what they're told.

Ah, but what is the extent of that sovereignty?

It's absolute (keep in mind we're talking about parental authority here and not parental behavior).

And disobeying your parents can be ok. If the parent tells you to stay put in a parking garage, then go away to shop. It would be ignore the order if a car comes sliding towards you.

Parking garages are usually large structures and certainly there's room enough for the kid to move out of the way of the car. Of course, depending on the age of the child, I would never leave the kid in the car.

That example makes it cut and dry, however, there are less cut and dry examples.

It wasn't a very good example.

How about a parent who only lets their kid leave the house to play with friends if they got all A's that semester?

Incentive.

What about a child who isn't allowed to be friends with someone who isn't Christian?

I don't have a problem with that.

Or if there is a divorce?

House rules! When in dad's house you follow dad's rules; when in mom's house you follow mom's rules.

These are all realistic questions that show there is a gray area where parents should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves?

Was it really your intention to ask a question here and did you really mean to say "parents" and not "children"? And, no, there is not a gray area in any of these examples. Again, we're talking about parental authority here and not parental behavior.

or should they just do what their parents told them to do "because they said so"?

Well, yes, in terms of parental authority it is enough for the child that their parents told them to do (or not do) something.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Chancellor Oh, please! Tell me you really don't believe that nonsense! The government does what it thinks is best for us????? Wrong! The government does what it thinks is best for government. And if you think that the warmonger currently in the White House is a professional or that these clowns in Congress are professionals, you should be slapped silly by every real professional for insulting them.

The great thing is I (mostly) agree with you.

However, why can't I apply this to parenting as well?
Just as not all faction of the government only do what is best for the government, many parents do what is best for their children. But I've also met many parents (but it could just be Hong Kong's culture) who care about their own face first and foremost. I was at this womans house when she got a phone call saying that her son had broken her leg and had gone to the hospital. She first hesitates to go because she doesn't see the point, then she realizes she should go "because it would look bad if she didn't"

Parents sometimes look out for their own interests and what things "look like" over the interests of their children, just like in government.

And I'm sure that most parents aren't professionals, nor do they act like ones. Many people have heard the story of a mother putting their child in the microwave. That's not completely unbelievable from what I've seen parents do.

So it all comes back to this. Why shouldn't we treat parents the same way we would a federal government?

That depends on your purpose in questioning and, with children, it's usually an attempt to question parental authority and to get out of doing what they're told.

If the government comes to take your guns away; you questioning the authority of the government to take your guns away is getting out of doing what your told. It's also the right thing to do under the law.

Quote by: chancellor Incentive

I didn't tell you the ending to the story. He has few social skills and is generally unhappy. The general consensus around school is, once he gets into Harvard/MIT/BigName, he won't be able to live without his parents because he is unable to do anything well except school work.

Quote by: chancellor I don't have a problem with that.

I do. If the kid genuinely likes talking to other people who may be atheist, then the parents stopping the kid is just going to make everything worse. The kid will either revolt, or worse, he will grow up completely dependent on his parents to decide who he can or can't be friends with.

Quote by: chancellor House rules! When in dad's house you follow dad's rules; when in mom's house you follow mom's rules.

Another true story. A friend of mine has parents who went through a really bad divorce. During their several trials, the following has happened. One parent is fairly strict and wont let his son drive a car at the age of sixteen. The other parent uses the promise of a car to win the kid over. A parent has driven off with a child after a trial even when the judge ordered the child to be returned to the other parent after the trial.

It's really quite sad and show how the parents don't always act in the child's best interest, but in what they think is the child's best interest which is the parent's best interest.

Was it really your intention to ask a question here and did you really mean to say "parents" and not "children"? And, no, there is not a gray area in any of these examples. Again, we're talking about parental authority here and not parental behavior.

Chancellor, you rarely see a gray area.

Parental authority should be proportional to how responsible the parent is. Sadly, I know most divorce judges in the USA would agree with me.

Well, yes, in terms of parental authority it is enough for the child that their parents told them to do (or not do) something.

If children would follow this law perfectly, the child from my first example would have stayed put while the car skidded into him.

Parents don't always know everything and so children can "improvise" accordingly.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon Agreed, the romans were a tough people because they were a patriarchy, you learn to think quicker around men, and act more decisively in a logical manner, whereas if you are bought up by women, their many fears and insecurity's, not to mention their irrational way of looking at life, becomes a weakness in your character.

I wasn't aware only women had "many fears and insecurities," that only they had irrational ways. And they're certainly not only capable of weakening one's character.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind The great thing is I (mostly) agree with you. However, why can't I apply this to parenting as well?

Presumably because, in his view, parents are above question.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Anmon Agreed, the romans were a tough people because they were a patriarchy, you learn to think quicker around men, and act more decisively in a logical manner, whereas if you are bought up by women, their many fears and insecurity's, not to mention their irrational way of looking at life, becomes a weakness in your character.

In comparison to all those cultures around Rome that were dominated by women. (that was sarcasm).

The Romans stood out from the other regions for many reasons. Being male dominated was not one of them.

And take a look at the woman "Margaret Thatcher" to see exactly how women don't always lead with "fears and insecurity's, not to mention their irrational way of looking at life"