Topic: what rights do you THINK you have as a parent ?? (Read 1273 times)

Not for me.  My children are homeschooled.  Try it, it's way easier to teach them then to fix them.

good points.

No one is born a great parent. Its a learn-as-you-go process, bringing along all the stuff we learned growing up, and we make alot of mistakes along the way. We cherry pick and create what we think is best for our kids to best succeed in life, relationships, and business/work. Morals and ethics are a huge part.

Dont forget, as Fathers, we also have the responsibility to correct the "education" they receive from sources outside of our Domain.

media, schools, groups, orgs, relatives, neighbors, friends, associates, or anyone else "teaching" our children anything.

I have found that to be one of the hardest parts about Fathering my children.

Oh, yes you will.  Because if you ever become a father, you will have to come to terms with the concept that it is your responsibility to educate your child so that they can assume their rights.  Your own shortcomings are irrelevent, you must do the best you can.  Dictating to the child what to read is an easy example of that.

As a parent, I have the "right" to act and make decisions on behalf of my children, as a caretaker of my child's rights up until the point that he is rationally capable of taking those rights for himself.  In most places, that point is usually defined by an arbitrary birthdate; but in reality most children hit the "age of reason" sometime between 11 and 14.  This also means that, as caretaker of my child's rights, I have the authority to use those rights, or obstain from using those rights, in whatever way I feel is best; the immediate opinions of the child in question are actually irrelevent.  So if I decide that my two year old needs dicipline, he gets 'incarcerated' into the corner against his own will, and that is not a violation of his rights even though to do something similar to a 19 year old certainly would be, because the two year old's rights are held by myself and his mother.

So you believe you know what's best for your child? You think you know who are the best people and what are the best books for your child? That's where we differ.

If I have ever have a child, I will never come to the point to where I think I know what's best for them. I don't think I am virtuous nor wise enough to take such a position over any person.

so how does a child learn that s/he is not entitled to the use of their parents property without the parents acting responsible, teaching them that, and disciplining them for infractions ?

does that no go against your "free and independent" theory ?

there are literally millions of other things than what we mentioned by the way.

edit: ok so now you are saying the child is only free and independent to the specific points of reading, association, and thinking. Ill agree with the thinking. kids should not be free to associate with whoever they want while under the age of 18. Peer influences and all. Also I disagree with freedom to read anything someoen throws in front of them. I should have the choice in what they read while they are under 18. Take some school materials parents are allowed to opt out of.

I never argued that a child should be fully entitled to a parents property. If it seems I did, I retract it. I am aware that some parent's are dirt poor. My parent's parents were. I am mainly arguing that children should be free to associate, free to read and be free to think as they please. All else comes second.

So if my child wants to use my chainsaw without my express permission and education and without knowing the rammifications of that action, its perfectly all right with you when he cuts off his arm or leg ? It was  a learning process... right ?

My power tools ?

My car ?

My knife and gun collection ?

Playing outdoors without my instruction on the dangers ?

Walking across a busy street ?

Playing in the water (lake? pool? stream? river? at the base of a dam?) without rules and instruction (or swimming lessons or knowledge about the dangers) ?

You are proving my points for me when you state food, shelter, and opportunity.

You are basically saying, "sure parents have some responsibility, but the kids should be free to do whatever they want in a learning process", when its totally contradictory to your food, shelter, and opportunity argument.

Kids need boundaries, structure, parental education, and discipline. You cant rationally argue that they should be free and independent, then in the same breath say parents should be responsible for the food they eat, their housing, and opportunities in life.

You sound like a youngster who wants what he wants with no limitations or boundaries, but want his parents to be responsible for him in other ways. No offense intended. No ad-hominem intended.

Our species has not eaten grains and sugars for most of its duration. You're empirically wrong. Infants can easily digest crushed fruits and vegetables.

Actually, infants are supposed to drink only breast milk. Most women were capable of breast-feeding at one time because they're babies would die otherwise. It was genetically-advantageous; evolution at its finest. There was also the option of a wet nurse; quite common in recent centuries and below.

Infants are supposed to only drink from their mothers. I can't imagine what the excess estrogen from the soymilk I drank as a baby did to me but, by god, I wish she had breast fed me from another mother. There's really no excuse. You can buy breast milk easily.  

Nobody naturally drinks too much water. You would have to force water down your child's throat to cause such poisoning. My definition only entails there are certain foods your body is not meant to eat. Wheat for instance causes your stomach to swell and artificial sugars cannot be properly processed by your body.

Also, water literally is poison with all the fluoride and heavy metals they pump into it nowadays. You have people getting Alzheimers at the age of 30 for a reason.

By the definition you're using, water is poison.  (as you well know, too much causes water toxicity)


You are right, it would end most of the human population with it, because infants cannot eat anything on your list and wouldn't survive long enough to become able.

Well, it's a poor choice of word. However, yes, I wouldn't feed my kids sugar, wheats, grains and other carbohydrate-dense dietary products based on USDA propaganda. To me, that is all poison. Empirically, it truly is poison and not because it is carcinogenic.  Biologically we are not designed to eat carbohydrate-rich food in large amounts.

Our diets should consist of just meat, veggies and fruits. That would end obesity; that would end most disease.

Junk food isn't junk food because it is carcinogenic, it is junk food because of its energy density in comparison to other nutrients.  It leads more to obesity than cancer.  A poor diet doesn't change a child's cancer risk very much, even if doubled or tripled or more, it's still pretty low.

Letting children play outside is more carcinogenic than feeding them candy due to exposure to solar radiation.  Certainly no one thinks letting them play outside is child abuse.

Also, an irrational and senseless child is only caused by a child whom was rarely given the option and/or opportunity to perceive and actually choose. A child that has her hand held and whims met only by a parent will remain as irrational and dependent from the day she was born for they will never know what it means to make its choice along with its ramifications on the child herself and her fellow man. They will never know what it means to work for the knowledge to achieve the objective at hand. Learning is one thing but learning how to learn is another: It is the most invaluable skill for long-term and pleasurable sustention.

Of course a child is born irrational because she has yet to been given the opportunity to perceive and make choices; this is how knowledge is created.

Like all human beings, she will learn to be rational by finding what works in his best-interest and what does not. We stumble upon knowledge. In our most primitive form, by trial and error we found out how to eat, drink and shelter ourselves. Gradually we took bigger leaps and bigger risks and became the advanced species we are today. As all life has the opportunity to explore and discover, a child should be entitled to the same in the fullest without significant risk of harm for this is the key to becoming a life-long learner.

We do not learn only as children. Ignorance pervades all ages; often to the same degree. The skill of learning is the most important skill and it can only be attained through independence.

I can debunk your argument simply. Actually, I can't disagree with it. I held that a parent is only responsibly for sustaining their child through food, shelter and providing opportunities.

Giving a child carcinogenic garbage, known as junk food, is abuse in my book. It's not even feeding them. It's certainly not just teaching a behavior. Making the choice to give your child poison to eat is simply abuse. It's a basic axiom of caring for a dependent: You don't give your child nor pet poison to eat. Overfeeding your child can easily be considered abuse too.

Remember, you're in control of the food, not the child. A child that eats poorly is only caused by an abusive parent and not a free and independent child.

I could not disagree more.

A child needs valuable life tools to make educated life decisions. Their enviromental upbringing supplies a basis for this (this means structure, rules, and most importantly, discipline). A child can not make an educated decision because they lack education, experience, and are irrational as to wants and desires versus needs (a child is irrational and wants what they desire no matter what the rammifications of that want and desire are - as parents we administrate over this and millions of other things FOR them).

Just one of millions of possible examples is: A child can not understand that eating junk food for every meal and snack every day will perminently harm their health, decrease their life expectancy, and harm those descendents they teach this to in the same ways. They simply want what they perceive as tasting good (they want what they desire).

Now compare that to a child parented and taught responsibly, eating only nutrient rich foods and drinks, with a treat once in a while. Hell, my kids dont even like candy and cakes. They like good food. Their treats are fruits, nuts, veggies and dips, etc. They learned this through our good parenting skills. Exponentially less chance for obesity, illness, disease, much higher energy levels, more fun in life being active, living longer and healthier, and a much better relationship through active lifestyles and time spend doing active things between child and parents. Of course they can certainly make their own decissions once they are 18, but with the basis provided to them by their parents and enviromental upbringing, its much less chance they wil lstray far from the healthy path.

I can't watch the video where I am but I will still answer the question.

In a literal sense, we only have the rights we can retain, grasp; that are tangible, if you will. We can do whatever with our children that is in our power while in the face of other forces.

However, when it comes to a morality that is based on the preservation and sustention of life, I will say a parent has little to no rights over their child. I believe a child is a sovereign human being and should be treated as such despite her ignorance. I believe a child should be entitled to inquire, perceive and associate as it pleases. This is how humanity has grown from a macro perspective and I think it should be no different for a growing human being. A child should be entitled to make choices and fail from said choices with exception to risks that would be detrimental to the child's long-term well-being. Failure allows growth and growth means more wisdom for future endeavors. With more wisdom, we will have a sentient being that can better achieve its happiness while creating more wealth for her fellow man.

Thus I do not find it moral for a child to be blinded from knowledge nor put into long-term and unreasonable servitude in the name of their parents whims. I will recognize that it is in the best interest of life in evolving countries to have children work and sustain their families; this is a fact of life but in a nation that has already flourished past the need for child labor, a child should stand in her own right.

In summary, I hold children as sovereign human beings. A parent should not do as much as feed, shelter and provide opportunities for their child. They are not to be molded, coerced and blinded to the parent's whim. Once a child has reached the full ability to sustain herself, they shall have no further obligation to the parent and the parent should have no further obligation to the child.

The agreement that was set forth at conception is completed once the aforementioned terms are met.

Again, I hold all individual sentient beings as sovereign and I would prefer them to be treated as such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QuSc_U5VqDQ#!