ACLU strikes again

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think a kid has a right to privacy if the kid is paying for the phone line.

 

Whoever owns the line has a right to privacy on it, and nobody else.

 

2GOLD:

Until you get a license, the only time you should be allowed privacy are bathroom and getting dressed. Other than that, you deserve none.

I'm 22 and don't have a driver's license because I don't need to drive. I don't deserve any privacy?

[Slayer 0]

Right. Jobber's don't get any privacy

[Justice 0]

I think a kid has a right to privacy if the kid is paying for the phone line.

 

Whoever owns the line has a right to privacy on it, and nobody else.

Well, even then there's the question of whether this can effectively mute parental power over the child. They have to act as guardians, even if the child bought an outside phone line they still have parental discretion. It's totally dependent on age, really; I don't see the phone line being the problem as much as age.

 

2GOLD:

Until you get a license, the only time you should be allowed privacy are bathroom and getting dressed. Other than that, you deserve none.

I'm 22 and don't have a driver's license because I don't need to drive. I don't deserve any privacy?

 

Yeah, hippie. Get a car, then get a job. Otherwise... *shines billy club*

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I was never spanked as a child. I don't think my ma had anything against spanking, I just never really did anything bad. I read a lot and played with toy guns and that's about it.

 

Come to think of it, I was never really disciplined very much at all. It was like the shame of doing something wrong was worse than any punishment I could have been given, so I never really did anything wrong. I never even had a curfew in high school, but I still felt like I needed to be home by a decent hour.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, even then there's the question of whether this can effectively mute parental power over the child. They have to act as guardians, even if the child bought an outside phone line they still have parental discretion.

Sorry, disagree with you here. There's clearly places where parents have yes/no authority, but I take a "if you buy it, it's yours" kind of philosophy when it comes to privacy over the phone.

 

I'm kind of big on privacy of a son/daughter, but that's mainly because I have a ton of skeletons in my closet (nothing illegal or dangerous, just shit that would cause stress) so I'm a bit more of a personal rights kind of person.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Another beating story. This time it involves the old woman.

 

Back in the day I was being a brat for some reason or another and the old woman geared back to give me a slap. I ducked the swing and then had the bright idea to stick out my tongue in an attempt to go "nah nah you missed me."

 

That wasn't smart becuase on the second attempt she connected.

 

And I remember the last time my parents attempted a spanking/slap. The old woman went to swing at me and I grabbed her wrist before it made contact with my face. That was the end of that...

[Guest Jason]

There's such a thing as treating a child as an equal and talking to them like they have a brain. Compounding parental failure with sneaky tactics isn't a way to ensure your child's well-being, it's a way to ensure that there's no hope for a healthy relationship where guidance rather than dictatorship can happen. Good parents shouldn't be pulling shit like this and the ones who are bad enough to fall back on this crap don't deserve to parent. If a parent is even remotely competent, the relationship with their child should never degrade to this point. Children are people too, and the Golden Rule applies to them as well as it does to adults. Unless a parent is okay with their kid listening to their conversations and going through their stuff, they shouldn't do it either. The ends do not justify the means.

[2GOLD 0]

I think a kid has a right to privacy if the kid is paying for the phone line.

 

Whoever owns the line has a right to privacy on it, and nobody else.

 

2GOLD:

Until you get a license, the only time you should be allowed privacy are bathroom and getting dressed. Other than that, you deserve none.

I'm 22 and don't have a driver's license because I don't need to drive. I don't deserve any privacy?

 

Your old enough to get one, not getting one is a personal choice you made. Below the age of 16, you deserve zero privacy.

 

Kids need to suck it up and realize til they are old enough, their ass BELONGS to their parents. Then they need to get off their lazy butts, put down that XBOX control and get outside and clean my damn gutters!

[Guest BDC]

There's such a thing as treating a child as an equal and talking to them like they have a brain. Compounding parental failure with sneaky tactics isn't a way to ensure your child's well-being, it's a way to ensure that there's no hope for a healthy relationship where guidance rather than dictatorship can happen. Good parents shouldn't be pulling shit like this and the ones who are bad enough to fall back on this crap don't deserve to parent. If a parent is even remotely competent, the relationship with their child should never degrade to this point. Children are people too, and the Golden Rule applies to them as well as it does to adults. Unless a parent is okay with their kid listening to their conversations and going through their stuff, they shouldn't do it either. The ends do not justify the means.

Wow, how is it in fantasy land? Loving parents can TRY, but sometimes you just have to drop the hammer, that's the way it is.

 

By stating that if a parent is remotely competent, this wouldn't happen, you show just how naive you are. The kid's friends are bad influences, so the parent doesn't want their kid around them? Well, that's one way to do it, but I'd bet that you'd howl about that, too.

[Guest Jason]

Well golly, I guess it'd be okay to make her sleep at the foot of her parents bed and lead her around on a leash too then. After all, that'd help her parents to keep an eye on her and make she's not doing anything wrong, which is all that matters right? I mean, if they have her "best interests" at heart, it's okay isn't it? Who cares about what it would mean to her as a person, just so long as she's behaving, right?

 

Saying that a child's rights are entirely subject to the wishes of their parents is total bullshit. If that were the case, we wouldn't have laws against beating or fucking kids. Invasion of privacy is wrong. I don't care if it's a parent, a teacher, a cop, or the fucking President. When Children's Services looks into living conditions in a home, one of the things they check is "does the child have their own room", why would they do that if it doesn't matter if the child has privacy? The kitchen floor should be good enough, since it's only a kid not a real person right?

 

Treat people with respect and you'll always get better results in the long run than if you bully them. This kind of behaviour is for the kind of parent whose kids move out the second they can and never come back. Personally I'd rather raise a child who has some sense of right and wrong, not just a belief that might makes right. It's fairly common knowledge that two wrongs don't make a right, so why is it okay for parents to suspend basic respect and decency to stop their kids from doing things they don't like? You should know as well as I do that turning 18 doesn't really make a significant change to how you think or view the world, so why is it that people assume that an adult always knows best? How does it serve the greater good to drive an irremovable wedge between parent and child? Do you really think the daughter is going to have any respect for her mother after she pulled a stunt like that? Do you think she's going to give two shits about what the nosey old bitch has to say about anything? If I were that child I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

My children won't have to put up with shit like this because I believe that you shouldn't do to other people what you wouldn't accept having done to yourself, and age doesn't change that. It is entirely possible to have discipline without violating the bounds of decency and good taste and this woman has utterly failed to do so.

 

Kids are people too and shouldn't be treated as less.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Since we're talking about parents, mine were hippies that laid a hand on me maybe half a dozen times in my youth, and they were all for being playing-with-fire-or-knives/fighting with another kid level of misbehaving.

[Special K 0]

-Jason:

 

So if, despite your best intentions and good parenting, your kid was getting in trouble with the law and drugs and shit, what would you do? Just let them do it? Throw up your hands and beg the government to take care of them?

As I've said, I'm sure you know siblings where one's a great person, and the other's a monster. Now, lots of kids just shape up as they grow more mature. until that time or until they are legal adults, I think it's a parent's responsibility to provide them with discipline. It could ruin their lives if they're left completely unchecked.

Obviously, if the child behaves to some extent, you shouldn't beat the shit out of them. And your equating keeping them on a literal leash or depriving them of basic human necessities with listening into a conversation is just fuckin' stupid. There are laws to keep children physically safe.

 

So in closing I would like to restate my question. what do you do when good, loving and respectful parenting fails?

[Guest SP-1]

Yes. Kids are people too.

 

People who lack the proper exerience and maturity, and especially lack a combination of the two, resulting in skewed judgment. They need guidance and until those elements begin to really mix (around 16 or so with decent, loving parents), then privacy shouldn't be a factor. Guiding a child into maturity overrides treating a kid like they're aleady mature. One way helps prevent terrible mistakes and teaches. The other can potentially screw up lives.

 

Kids are people. But kids are not adults with full control over their lives. There's a big difference.

[Guest Loss]

Since we're talking about parents, mine were hippies that laid a hand on me maybe half a dozen times in my youth, and they were all for being playing-with-fire-or-knives/fighting with another kid level of misbehaving.

Ditto.

[Guest BDC]

Well golly, I guess it'd be okay to make her sleep at the foot of her parents bed and lead her around on a leash too then. After all, that'd help her parents to keep an eye on her and make she's not doing anything wrong, which is all that matters right? I mean, if they have her "best interests" at heart, it's okay isn't it? Who cares about what it would mean to her as a person, just so long as she's behaving, right?

 

Lovely straw man you're putting up there. I'm saying that kids need to be parented, you're advocating abuse on my behalf. Go you.

 

Saying that a child's rights are entirely subject to the wishes of their parents is total bullshit. If that were the case, we wouldn't have laws against beating or fucking kids. Invasion of privacy is wrong. I don't care if it's a parent, a teacher, a cop, or the fucking President. When Children's Services looks into living conditions in a home, one of the things they check is "does the child have their own room", why would they do that if it doesn't matter if the child has privacy? The kitchen floor should be good enough, since it's only a kid not a real person right?

 

First of all, you're making cases that aren't about PRIVACY. And tell me, please, where is there the part where anyone here said kids weren't real people? We're saying that parents who parent take a little bit of precedence. Unless, of course, you think that parents shouldn't do anything if they have a troublemaker child. "Oh, he's such an angel, I couldn't believe that out of my son" is the same fucking song and dance shit I heard at school about the troublemakers' parents. You know why? Because they didn't have the guts to parent their brats.

 

Treat people with respect and you'll always get better results in the long run than if you bully them. This kind of behaviour is for the kind of parent whose kids move out the second they can and never come back. Personally I'd rather raise a child who has some sense of right and wrong, not just a belief that might makes right.

 

Okay, so let me try to figure this out. Treat kids with respect, because if you try and stop them from doing destructive behaviors, then you're a bad parent, at least by your definition. And a sense of right and wrong as opposed to what, exactly? Might makes right fits in this HOW?

 

It's fairly common knowledge that two wrongs don't make a right, so why is it okay for parents to suspend basic respect and decency to stop their kids from doing things they don't like? You should know as well as I do that turning 18 doesn't really make a significant change to how you think or view the world, so why is it that people assume that an adult always knows best?

 

Tell you what, when a brat of a kid shows respect to his/her parents, the parents can show respect back, okay? Until then, no respect either way. By your reasoning, that's how it should be. And as for the adult knowing best? I think someone that's lived through more and raised some ingrate knows a bit more than some 14 year old that thinks he/she knows it all.

 

How does it serve the greater good to drive an irremovable wedge between parent and child? Do you really think the daughter is going to have any respect for her mother after she pulled a stunt like that? Do you think she's going to give two shits about what the nosey old bitch has to say about anything? If I were that child I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

Then WHY shouldthe parent be showing respect? If this girl could pull her head out of her self-serving ass, she'd realize that her mother was acting vindictively. Why do you think kids say to their parents "you really did know best"?

 

My children won't have to put up with shit like this because I believe that you shouldn't do to other people what you wouldn't accept having done to yourself, and age doesn't change that. It is entirely possible to have discipline without violating the bounds of decency and good taste and this woman has utterly failed to do so.

 

You've got this concept that monitoring a child (which a 14 year old IS) that's dating a 22 year old doesn't have some kind of reason to be wary? Bounds of DECENCY? Parenting a child is decency.

 

Let me put this another way: if the parents of the Columbine shooters had been parents and checked on what their kids were doing, would we have had people shot dead in a school?

[Guest Jason]

I don't disagree that discipline is important, I just disagree with how this woman approached the problem. How can anyone reasonably expect their kid to become a better person if the primary example they're seeing from their parent is a bad one? If she's that bad, ground her. Keep her off the phone. If she's acting up that badly, there must be a reason, so get her some help. There are a great number of good ways to help a child get though a rough patch, but making them fell shitty and treating them like dirt isn't one of them. If they're so bad that you can't control them, let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

Your belief that higher authorities are within their rights to violate people's privacy for their own good would no doubt make the FBI very happy. If you ever get in any trouble, it's good to know that you wouldn't mind them tapping your phone or reading your mail.

 

Read George Orwell's "1984" and tell me then how you feel about well-meaning violations of privacy.

[Guest BDC]

I don't disagree that discipline is important, I just disagree with how this woman approached the problem. How can anyone reasonably expect their kid to become a better person if the primary example they're seeing from their parent is a bad one? If she's that bad, ground her. Keep her off the phone. If she's acting up that badly, there must be a reason, so get her some help. There are a great number of good ways to help a child get though a rough patch, but making them fell shitty and treating them like dirt isn't one of them. If they're so bad that you can't control them, let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

 

Your belief that higher authorities are within their rights to violate people's privacy for their own good would no doubt make the FBI very happy. If you ever get in any trouble, it's good to know that you wouldn't mind them tapping your phone or reading your mail.

 

Read George Orwell's "1984" and tell me then how you feel about well-meaning violations of privacy.

I can defer to "straw man" and "slipperly slope" again, if I must.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Since we're talking about parents, mine were hippies that laid a hand on me maybe half a dozen times in my youth, and they were all for being playing-with-fire-or-knives/fighting with another kid level of misbehaving.

Ditto.

Score one for nature over nurture.