NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering your opinion. Do you think parents should have authority over children? Do you think the state should? Do you feel that a child (child being someone under the age of 18 ) should be allowed to have control over his/her own life? Or do you think Micheal Jackson has the right to have his way with any little boy? What do you think??

The Parents. They brought ht e child into the world hoping to raise them according to their srandards. After the child gains self awareness, they can discuss with their parents how they should be treated.

I think until the child is about 12, give or take a year, the parent should have control. After that, the child should be given more freedom. If they are restricted until 18, they are mre likely to try and bend and break the rules than say a child, of the same age, who has fewer.

As for the Jacko thing... I think if the child consented and is 12+, what the hell is the bloody problem? If the parents have a problem with it, why the hell did they let the child go there in the first place? That was asking for trouble....

It is quite obvious.

*The parent brought the child into the world thus making them responsible for the childs exitence.

*The child does not have the ability to think rationally and survive by itself.

*A psychological bond exists between the parents and the child.

*The parents are therefore best suited to bring up the child as opposed to the state that might generalise in its treatment of children or abuse its power and indoctrinate them.

In conclusion, parents seem the logical choice.

The parents...they are responsible until that child is 18. While there are other influences, parents are the ones that help to develop that child's way of dealing with life so they can make the choices that will invariably enter their lives.

Sorry about the poll. I really f***ed that one up. Just like MJ f***ed up those boys. :lol:

I think the child's most influential years are from birth to 10 years old. IF they are treated with a taste of freedom, some rules and restrictions but generally given the chance to grow and become their own person, some peer pressure won't affect them.

As for parents being the logical choice, I don't think it is always a good idea.

Also, children are not as dumb as they seem. They learn a lot from watching. So, if the parents aren't the best, the child will grow to think this is the way to act and become like the parents. A child develops his/her ability to think rational and survive by watching and learning from the parents. So, there are some adults who can't think rationally and survive on their own. But, there are some children who can......

It is quite obvious.

*The parent brought the child into the world thus making them responsible for the childs exitence.

*The child does not have the ability to think rationally and survive by itself.

*A psychological bond exists between the parents and the child.

*The parents are therefore best suited to bring up the child as opposed to the state that might generalise in its treatment of children or abuse its power and indoctrinate them.

In conclusion, parents seem the logical choice.
Are you 18 yet? If so, I wonder if on your 18th birthday you magically gained all ability to think rationally? If not, let me tell you- you don't magically gain all ability to think rationally on your 18th birthday. Children was defined as someone under the age of 18. I think parents should be expected to raise their children properly (meaning best as they see fit)- but I also think part of that is forcing the kid to take a lot of responsibility in his own life. Then again, since I defined it as best as the parents see fit, thats just how I see fit. If kids aren't given responsibility, and chances to make their own decisions, then they won't be able to do it when they turn 18 and the parents have no more legal control.

That said, I voted for the 1st option

With the exception of abuse cases, power should be with the parent. Giving power to the state is something out of communism. I don't think giving power to kids is really a good idea when they're young. But that doesn't mean that parents should act completely authoritarian with their kids. I'd like my parents to be a little more easy going, they don't seem to like the idea of me having fun. (Though you can't really put laws against that)

An authoritarian relationship between a parent and child makes the child much less likely to oppose authority. Therefore, the child should have the power to teach them to defend their freedom.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Parents! No one on the face of the planet has put more vested interest into you, no one will ever care about you as your parents (this does not include abusive people) Your parents want you to be a success, your parents would never harm you in any way.. I created my children.. no one loves them as much as me. My children are my responsibility. I can only hope I turn out fine members of society.. So far it's looking good.

Depends on what you mean by control. Parents should certainly be responsible for the health and well being of their children, and should certainly be the first to make decisions about their childrens' education, diet, discipline and the like.

But that control isn't absolute. Parents can't sell their children into slavery, for instance. But I think the only time that parental control should be questioned is when the health and safety of the children is in question, but even then the state should be careful about when and where it steps in.

Not the government. Am I right in thinking it's because of bad parents requesting it that governments intervene?

In my experience, GNU-Linux, it;s not the bad parents who make the request for governmental interference, at least not in the US. It's usually neighbors or teachers or doctors who do that, especially int he case of physical abuse.

in carlemnaria we define childhood as ending with the physiological onset of puberty. when they leave home for their intereducational sabatical called pujzhush at arround age 12 the are fully on their own though with the same extencive support as there is for everybody.

we also reguard authority and responsibility as inseperable.

even younger children are subject to less of many forms of age aparthied, but are subject to the legitimate coathority of their coparents in educating their self restraing which is of course important and much of early development emphasisiz this.

=^^=
.../\...

It is quite obvious.

SNIP

*The parents are therefore best suited to bring up the child as opposed to the state that might generalise in its treatment of children or abuse its power and indoctrinate them.

MIGHT?

SHL

Sorry about the poll. I really f***ed that one up. Just like MJ f***ed up those boys. :lol:

That can be edited. MJ's problem runs much deeper. Like Whitney Houston he has a little crack problem. :lol:

SHL

Parents! No one on the face of the planet has put more vested interest into you, no one will ever care about you as your parents (this does not include abusive people) Your parents want you to be a success, your parents would never harm you in any way.. I created my children.. no one loves them as much as me. My children are my responsibility. I can only hope I turn out fine members of society.. So far it's looking good.

Agreed. No one has the intimate awareness of their child and their needs like a parent. No one will be as dedicated to that child for life. The state, no matter how benign, is a very poor substitute.

SHL

Depends normaly i would say the parents unles they are somehow unable to.

Quite obviously the parents, though of course they may need guidance and help from elsewhere (i.e: the State).

I would have to say the parents, unless they were a danger to the child.

This is a social/costumes question....

for this kind of question...I usually sing my favorite EURYTHMICS song...

Sorry about the poll. I really f***ed that one up. Just like MJ f***ed up those boys. :lol:

That can be edited. MJ's problem runs much deeper. Like Whitney Houston he has a little crack problem. :lol:

SHL

His problems go a little deeper than a crack problem. :lol:

Why oh why can't he be like he used to? :cry:

I sort of made this as a joke, then it sprouted into a pollitical debate.

The parents, but there is currently limits. This was much debated in another thread here about a book written for first-grades which promoted the homosexual lifestyle (King & King) Most there felt that the parents had no authority to limit what books their children are exposed to. They felt the government should have more authority over a first grader than the parent.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133167&highlight=


My personal feelings are that a parents should have complete authority up to a certain age - currently 13.

Currently at 13 the child has the ability to attend a PG-13 movie. It may be against the parents wishes, however nobody but the parent bears any responsibility in enforcing it. Ages 12 and younger we as a culture have a responsibility to the parents to keep the child out of the theater unless accompanied by an adult.

I think that is reasonable. At age 13 not everything is wide open; other responsibilities come later: driving, sexual activity, buying tobaco and buying alcohol for example. Though I disagree with many they are the current standards.

So, though a parent does hold total authority at young ages, as a child matures more and more of that authority evaporates.

michael jackson

the parents but I would hope and encourage parents to allow much freedom don't force encourage,teach and so on.

I think that is reasonable. At age 13 not everything is wide open; other responsibilities come later: ...sexual activity....

How did you manage to come up with this one? There is no age a which a person may legally start having sex. While I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say, it seems to be ill-fitting in the way you're using it.

the children should have most control over themselves the parents can take care of the big documents and crap like that BIG WORDS :shock: :?

bump

The parents, but there is currently limits. This was much debated in another thread here about a book written for first-grades which promoted the homosexual lifestyle (King & King) Most there felt that the parents had no authority to limit what books their children are exposed to. They felt the government should have more authority over a first grader than the parent.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=133167&highlight=


My personal feelings are that a parents should have complete authority up to a certain age - currently 13.

Currently at 13 the child has the ability to attend a PG-13 movie. It may be against the parents wishes, however nobody but the parent bears any responsibility in enforcing it. Ages 12 and younger we as a culture have a responsibility to the parents to keep the child out of the theater unless accompanied by an adult.

I think that is reasonable. At age 13 not everything is wide open; other responsibilities come later: driving, sexual activity, buying tobaco and buying alcohol for example. Though I disagree with many they are the current standards.

So, though a parent does hold total authority at young ages, as a child matures more and more of that authority evaporates.

Evaporates? Perhaps transferred is a better expression. A parents responsibility and the authority to carry it out currently extend to 18 (in New York). Hopefully the parent has been extending the child's range of personal responsibility and self determination, as is appropriate to the individual, all along. Maturity and responsibility is a process whose natural outcome is independence.

SHL

I think that is reasonable. At age 13 not everything is wide open; other responsibilities come later: ...sexual activity....

How did you manage to come up with this one? There is no age a which a person may legally start having sex. While I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say, it seems to be ill-fitting in the way you're using it.

Age of consent is currently 18 in the states. If anyone over that age engages in sexual actvity with anyone under that age it is defined as statutory rape.

and yes, I feel that is ridiculous, particularly relating to an 18 and 17 year old - however it is the law.

In some states 18 is legally considered adulthood -others 21. The national drinking age is 21. I feel that is lame, but it also is the law.

The US culture seems to strive to extend childhood unnaturally long by deferring rights responsibilities and priveleges - particularly responsibilities.

The children should be in control as soon as they exersize the self-control and common sense that marks the difference between "mature" and "immature".

Of course, this is a process that takes many years, and untill the time that a child has matured to the point where both their ability to exersize self-control and common sense have become a habit it should be preferred that the parents when possible are the guiding forces in this process.

Also, it goes without saying that the "hand-over of power" should be done gradually.

Parents! No one on the face of the planet has put more vested interest into you, no one will ever care about you as your parents (this does not include abusive people) Your parents want you to be a success, your parents would never harm you in any way.. I created my children.. no one loves them as much as me. My children are my responsibility. I can only hope I turn out fine members of society.. So far it's looking good.

Agreed. No one has the intimate awareness of their child and their needs like a parent. No one will be as dedicated to that child for life. The state, no matter how benign, is a very poor substitute.

SHL
Um....The kids themself have more vested interest. The vast majority of kids would choose to live with their parents. Any kid who didn't want to live with their parents shouldn't be forced to and can choose anyone else who volunteers to look after them or even live on their own. If they can't hack it on their own they'll easily find someone willing to take care of them.

I read about a 9 year old who was abused by his parents. He ran away and months later was found healthy in his own apartment and with a job. That kid was forcibly incarcerated in an orphanage and eventually ended up in an asylum. Sick.

"Yo' Momma!"

Ha! That aphorism actually works!

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

Definitely the child - they have to learn from their own mistakes, even if that does involve wandering out into the middle of the road.

A human has five senses being touch, taste, sight, sound and smell. Take a moment to think about how we actually work. Let's say you are sitting next to a really smelly kid. Your nose (smell sensor) tells your brain that the kid next to you smells, and so you make a decision to shout out "Oi smelly kid go sit somewhere else". What you are seeing is that your input device (nose) tells your processor (brain) that the kid smells and your output device (mouth) shouts at the smelly kid. In short what we can conclude is that there is an input, then a process and then an output.
Therefor the State should have control after all, who else."Knows Best"
http://heatherlloyd.crosswinds.net/horror/evildead-armydarkness/ashwithchain.jpg

lmfao :lol:

I think the parents should have control because, they brought them into the world so therefore and by they have the right to raise them. Until they turn eighteen thats the age (my opinion) that they have the right to make their own decisions. 8)

I think the parents should have control because, they brought them into the world so therefore and by they have the right to raise them. Until they turn eighteen thats the age (my opinion) that they have the right to make their own decisions. 8)

The child him/herself.

They are themselves and they should make their own decisions.

I think that is reasonable. At age 13 not everything is wide open; other responsibilities come later: ...sexual activity....

How did you manage to come up with this one? There is no age a which a person may legally start having sex. While I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say, it seems to be ill-fitting in the way you're using it.

Age of consent is currently 18 in the states. If anyone over that age engages in sexual actvity with anyone under that age it is defined as statutory rape.

and yes, I feel that is ridiculous, particularly relating to an 18 and 17 year old - however it is the law.

In some states 18 is legally considered adulthood -others 21. The national drinking age is 21. I feel that is lame, but it also is the law.

The US culture seems to strive to extend childhood unnaturally long by deferring rights responsibilities and priveleges - particularly responsibilities.

That's what I thought you meant, and I do support it - not because it's the law, but because a line does need to be drawn. I just wanted to mention it because it's the one thing that didn't fit with the other examples you cited. Laws when you reach 18 allowing you to do something, versus laws restricting you from doing something...but that restriction is quite necessary. I suppose if you are thinking of it in terms of "responsibilities," then yeah, the example does work.

Now, that drinking age thing, that does need to change...