Subject:
|
Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
317 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Basically, I think that to deny access to our rights as citizens based on the
> age of the citizen (which I assert kids are) is exactly the moral equivalent
> of denying rights based on skin tone or gender. (Which is to say, an
> abomination.)
Okay, but would you hold a profoundly retarded person equally culpable for
his actions as a fully-functioning, mentally healthy adult? To do so would
be, in my view, unforgiveably cruel and unfair. By the same token, if a
child is developmentally unable to make certain decisions or to handle
certain situations, is it acceptable to hold that child responsible for the
repercussions of those decisions, even if the child was forced into making
the decision?
I confess, your model is impressive but seems inconsistent with what is
currently the case.
> I'm not exactly opposed to paying kids for the chores, just the coercion part.
> The kid should be as free to enter a contract for labour as an adult. I do
> find it repugnant for the parents to withhold reasonable spending power in
> order to defacto coerce their kids.
Well, if the kid doesn't want to do the chore, should the child still be
given reasonable spending power? Do you advocate child employment along the
lines of early 20th century sweatshops? Clearly these would spring up in a
hurry if children were free to enter into employment contracts under their
own counsel.
I guess I don't understand your point; should children be given a wage
even if they aren't doing work? Is the parent free to set the wage? If the
child rejects the wage, is he free to seek employment elsewhere? Can the
parent charge the child for room and board and affection? Can a parent
terminate his contract with his child? Can a parent sue his child for
breach of contract? What manner of reparations are suitable?
> Keep in mind that ab-use is a synonym for mis-use. I think it a misuse of a
> human to enslave them.
I think you need to refocus that premiss. By some measure, all employment
is enslavement.
> I think that there is no contract in place between an unborn
> child and the prospective parents that give the parents special privelege in
> forcing compliance with rules. _All_ of the responsibility for giving is on
> the shoulders of those who had a choice. Parents incur a great responsibility,
> much more so than most people understand when first making that choice -- and
> usually ever, in my estimation.
But it seems that, in your estimation, the child is (from the age of four)
able to make reasoned choices based on abstract societal issues. Surely
such a child could be made to understand the implications of a social
contract and the tacit endorsement of that contract by continuing to sleep
in a bed under his parents' roof? I grant you, prior to the development of
mature reasoning skills a child cannot be held to the same liabilities as a
full-grown adult, but you seem happy to ascribe mature responsibility to
children at a much earlier age than I am willing to accept.
> Our [family] budget is run democratically. It was simple to explain to my son
> when he was four that if we didn't pay the house payment we'd have to live
> under a bridge. He was thence in favor of devoting that amount to that
> purpose. Same with the utilities. When he wanted something a bit expensive
> me made him a part of the budget process so that we could figure out how to
> get it. We now have a short-hand method of handling it by just agreeing in
> advance that we're going to pay our bills and then give each member of the
> family a completely discretionary allowance.
Bravo for your son, but it's dangerous to extrapolate a "correct" method
of child rearing based on a microscopically anecdotal sample. Can you
demonstrate how you would have handled your son's response if he hadn't seen
the light of your democratic budget planning? I simply don't accept that
your four year old child has formal, adult reasoning ability regarding
abstract cause-and-effect regarding the relative worth of metaphorical
exchange media. If he is so able to reason, you need to bring him to the
attention of child psychologists; your methods of parenting must be
revolutionary.
My tone, as I reread that bit, is admittedly a bit sarcastic, and I
apologize for unintended sharpness. Nevertheless, if you're asserting your
child to have abstract reasoning skills vastly in an excess of those I've
ever witnessed in any other children, I have to question:
A: Are you deliberately misrepresenting the data for some end?
B: Are you simply overestimating your child's reasoning skills?
C: Is your child a wunderkind with unprecedented formal reasoning skills?
D: Are you using selective reasoning, due to parental affection?
E: Is your child simply feigning comprehension, and are you too quick to
believe that he comprehends?
F: Does your child not understand, although you nonetheless perceive him
to have comprehended the situation?
G: Are you undertaking any or all of the above?
I've read enough of your views to believe implicitly that you wouldn't
deliberately falsify information to make a point, but I do believe that you
might be selective in your perceptions, much as we all are selective.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| Sorry if I've been a little more rambly than usual, I'm home from work with a stomach flu and I've slept about 90% of the past 20 hours. I just reread my note and while I accept that lots of people write better than me, this one was a bit much. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Megan's Law, and its implications
|
| (...) Frank's "[as an abuse]" is a perfect clarification. Basically, I think that to deny access to our rights as citizens based on the age of the citizen (which I assert kids are) is exactly the moral equivalent of denying rights based on skin tone (...) (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
