NationStates Jolt Archive

I wouldn't say that NOT paying for your children's college (not school, right? We're talking about FURTHER education?) was a malicious act. I wouldn't say that NOT allocating funds for advanced schooling was 'harm'.It's not the failure to pay in and of itself that is the harm--it's that the aid was obviously promised previously and now is being withheld as the result of the son's political views that is the problem.

Okay... let me just ask WHERE exactly you think I'm wrong...

On the issue of parenting?

Or on the 'reductio ad absurdum'?

Or... something else?
The 'reductio ad absurdum'

I could accept that, but I'm bored and pissed off and you're really good at debating and therefore, I persist (take this as a compliment)


I do, indeed, take it as a compliment, and one which means all the more because of how highly I have esteemed your own contributions.

You have my thanks, friend.


You say the father wants the child to grow up right, but is willing to use the childs future as a tool to gain his means.


Not how I would have phrased it, certainly... as far as the father is concerned, it IS the kid's future that is the issue. The father obviously thinks that an educated Democrat is still just a Democrat... and thus, 'not the sort of thing we want our children to grow up to become'.


I'm sure we can all agree that a college education helps alot in future life, and that the exceptions are relatively few and far between, yes? So while the father is trying to have his child grow up "right" (if there is such a thing), he is deliberatly and directly placing the childs future in the balance. Yes, the child can work. Yes, he can go to school at the same time. But this does help to contribute to students who drop out of school to support themselves instead.


Indeed - this was half the reason I dropped out of my last year at Uni.

But again... IS he "placing the childs future in the balance"? From his perspective, the child has ALREADY placed his future in the balance. The father is placing weights on the scale, but the issue is ALREADY being 'assayed'.


and I am curious what you have to say to the nursing home argument...

Let me go back to it...

Nice try at what? It's the most obvious example that political party membership can have privilege.

One needn't look that far, of course... one merely needs to visit small-town America to see that people often ARE dealt with differently, because of something as simple as favoured political party.


If you can show that being a factor where the boy lives then you get the point.


But the principle remains.

Ok if you want to belive that ok whatever.


I believe the current policy is: "Don't need to. The definition explains itself."... no?

Ok then you lost whatever point you were trying to make as I don't know what you are talking about.


I did no such thing.

If the guy believes that there is really something empirically flawed about 'buying into' Democrat politics, then he is literally doing everything he can to protect his child.

How do you feel about cults? How do you feel about 'interventions'?


In your opinion. A good parent may want their child to do well... but, at what cost?

Do you think Traci Lord's parents imagined their newborn baby daughter 'doing well' by selling herself? Do you think that might be one of those cases where one might prefer NO 'success' for their child?



Rolling eyes is what? An admission that your claim that neo-nazis were not "a political party here" was conclusively shown to be MUCH less than accurate?

I have to admit I was thinking of the group and not the party. However, we are talking about demorcrats and republicans.

There is no way that what this father is doing can be reasonably called discipline, training or structure. This is bullying at best.

Perhaps.

When my seven-year-old daughter does something naughty, I institute actions to address the situation.

Some of those actions are punitive. No TV, for example.

Some of those actions are 'structures'... the simple retelling of what 'rules' are in place, and which lines should not be transgressed.

These 'restrictions', in very real terms, could be considered me "Tossing down speed bumps".

I call them 'structure'. I call them 'training'. I call it 'discipline'.


The father is not punitively acting against the boy, he is withholding a 'prize', as a way of reinforcing 'lines should not be transgressed'.

Not according to almost every book on child-rearing I've encountered.

Indeed, 'discipline', 'training' and 'structure' are considered, generally, good things.... I believe.

That would be the case if the father said "Son, I am sorry but I worked for my education and I think you should do the same."

Which he didn't. So that argument does not fly here.

Perhaps.

When my seven-year-old daughter does something naughty, I institute actions to address the situation.

Some of those actions are punitive. No TV, for example.

Some of those actions are 'structures'... the simple retelling of what 'rules' are in place, and which lines should not be transgressed.

These 'restrictions', in very real terms, could be considered me "Tossing down speed bumps".

I call them 'structure'. I call them 'training'. I call it 'discipline'.


The father is not punitively acting against the boy, he is withholding a 'prize', as a way of reinforcing 'lines should not be transgressed'.
But the son isn't "being naughty." He's maturing and thinking for himself, which is precisely what he ought to be doing at that age, and his father is trying to repress that development by withholding promised future aid.

for all you know this could be a scam for the son to go to school free courtesy of saps who think they have to jump in and save him.

This is, indeed, a possibility.

"Mesmerise the simple minded. Propaganda leaves us blinded"

who the fuck cares, is the news really slow for the bush bashers that they have to talk about some republican dad not giving his son money. he is not required to give his son money, he isnt breaking a law, its a family issue not a national issue.


Bush bashers? *sigh* Why not bring up Clinton while you are at it.


btw the son will probably end up on top with his website and publicity with link to his website. for all you know this could be a scam for the son to go to school free courtesy of saps who think they have to jump in and save him.

Why is an act of kindess a mark of being a sap?

There is always the possibility of a scam. Ann Coutler makes a great deal of money saying outlandish crap and others have picked up on that and have done the same.

Time will tell here......

I do, indeed, take it as a compliment, and one which means all the more because of how highly I have esteemed your own contributions.

You have my thanks, friend.



Not how I would have phrased it, certainly... as far as the father is concerned, it IS the kid's future that is the issue. The father obviously thinks that an educated Democrat is still just a Democrat... and thus, 'not the sort of thing we want our children to grow up to become'.



Indeed - this was half the reason I dropped out of my last year at Uni.

But again... IS he "placing the childs future in the balance"? From his perspective, the child has ALREADY placed his future in the balance. The father is placing weights on the scale, but the issue is ALREADY being 'assayed'.



Let me go back to it...
You know, you are making it really hard for me to argue because you have made my entire argument subjective, and therefore, it would just become "yes it is" "no it isn't". Well played.:fluffle:
As far as this line of argument goes, I don't think there is much more we can do.

Lets flip this around for a hot sec.
the father, 30 or 40 years from now has to go into a nursing home. He asks his son to help pay. His son responds "If you will become a democrat, I will pay for whatever nursing home you want. Otherwise, you are on your own." After all, the father could get a job, take out loans, and has a steady income in the form of social security that probably exceeds the income the boy can make as a part time worker, full time student.

Would that be unreasonable? I mean... the father CAN 'pay his way'. It is entirely possible the father can 'pay his way' through the 'nursing home years' just from his social security. (Although, of course, THAT possibility is a dminishing one, now).

One COULD argue that the child OWES the parent, in terms of all the parent has done for him... with or without college.

One could also argue that the father could (just as the child could) be a 'lip-service' professor of the party line...

I still think the situation is incomprehensible... no matter whether it is father-to-son, or son-to-father.

Would that be unreasonable? I mean... the father CAN 'pay his way'. It is entirely possible the father can 'pay his way' through the 'nursing home years' just from his social security. (Although, of course, THAT possibility is a dminishing one, now).

One COULD argue that the child OWES the parent, in terms of all the parent has done for him... with or without college.

One could also argue that the father could (just as the child could) be a 'lip-service' professor of the party line...

I still think the situation is incomprehensible... no matter whether it is father-to-son, or son-to-father.
I think it is fairly unreasonable in either instance, to deny helping a family member because of something so inconsequential as what party you lable yourself...

It really does work decently as an analogy, because with rising education costs, it is becoming harder to pay your way through college without massive debt, much as decent nursing care is becoming more difficult to afford.

I argue that in either scenario, they both owe it to the other to do whatever is possible

I think that this kid is showing that he has a lot of integrity, unlike his father who has some pretty whacked values about family. Politics divides a lot of families. In my family if I asked either my Father or Mother how they voted they would say it was none of my damned business (the ballot is secret and sacred). My Dad loves to talk politics but doesn’t feel that it’s anyone’s right to know how he voted. A lot of families would do well to keep it to themselves and quit beating each other up with partisan divides in their household.

If the only contention of paying for college for their son was their political affiliation, then that’s pretty weak. I mean it’s one thing if your kid is affiliated with Al Qaida or the Crypts, but losing your cool because your kid is a member of the opposite political party (when the lines are often as blurred as they are) is not a sign of good character. If a corrupt political party (aren’t they all) means more to you than your own son, you already have a problem.

On the other hand, parents aren’t really obligated to pay their kids way through college, as many believe they are. If you want to go to college like the other kids, get a scholarship, get a job, join the officer corps, or take out a loan. If your parents are thinking of paying for your college fund you should be damned thankful of it and not take it for granted. You’re lucky if when you graduate from high school you don’t come home and find all your stuff packed and stacked on the front lawn (I actually knew someone who had that happen to them).

If you can show that being a factor where the boy lives then you get the point.


Well, Highland Park is just on the edge of Dallas... it's an affluent area (median income in Highland Park is $100,000 per annum), and it's described as... "having a high concentration of the wealthy and elite social classes".

Dallas only had 3 democrat victories in... 25 counties? in the last election... and Dallas itself went republican by a small margin.

Looking at the affluence of the area, the political affiliations of the State, and the 'white upper-middle-class' demographic (97%+ 'white')... it is fairly safe to assume that this town, with a population of only 8000-ish is one of those parts of 'small-town-America' where party affiliation COULD make a big difference.

Ok then you lost whatever point you were trying to make as I don't know what you are talking about.


Believe it or not, that was actually, pretty much, the point.

I have to admit I was thinking of the group and not the party.


Accepted. No foul.

However, we are talking about demorcrats and republicans.

Which is why I said 'special exception' is being argued. We 'allow' bias against political parties, except for the 'main two'.

That would be the case if the father said "Son, I am sorry but I worked for my education and I think you should do the same."

Which he didn't. So that argument does not fly here.

Why would that be the 'only' case that mattered?

I was never a girl, but there are aspects of discipline I 'insist' on with my daughter... so our OWN experiences are not necessarily the ONLY measure we should have for our children.

But the son isn't "being naughty." He's maturing and thinking for himself, which is precisely what he ought to be doing at that age, and his father is trying to repress that development by withholding promised future aid.

I'm not sure about the 'promised' aid...

The article cited says: "Ted Gambordella dislikes the idea that his only son, a Highland Park High junior, is a Democrat. He loathes it so much that he has flat-out refused to pay for his son's college education unless he becomes a Republican".

It doesn't say he HAD promised anything, as far as I can tell?

Anyway... promised or no, it isn't a matter of just 'being naughty'... we guide our children in OTHER ways, to...

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it".

You know, you are making it really hard for me to argue because you have made my entire argument subjective, and therefore, it would just become "yes it is" "no it isn't". Well played.:fluffle:
As far as this line of argument goes, I don't think there is much more we can do.

:)

If it ends here, so be it. I'll feel no worse for the chance I've had to debate it with you. :)

I think it is fairly unreasonable in either instance, to deny helping a family member because of something so inconsequential as what party you lable yourself...

It really does work decently as an analogy, because with rising education costs, it is becoming harder to pay your way through college without massive debt, much as decent nursing care is becoming more difficult to afford.

I argue that in either scenario, they both owe it to the other to do whatever is possible

That's a family choice, though... isn't it?

Some families would insist that the 'kids' MUST support their parents in their dotage, some would say otherwise... SOME would say parents MUST provide for their children's college, some would say otherwise.

It's got to be one of the best arguments FOR state education and nursing...

I said earlier that I thought it was a stupid reason for witholding the money, how exactly is that not criticism?
What are we arguing about? We both agree here. You seem to be paranoid enough to think that I think the father ought to be arrested.

you and I will have to disagree there since I don't expect the government to provide free education either, I don't see how it's the government's job to do that.
Aren't you going to even try to rationalise your belief? I will.

It is vital to Ireland's competitiveness that we churn out the best university graduates that we can. This means that all students with the talent must have the financial ability to go to university. Thus, we get the best of the entire crop of students, not just the best of the crop who can afford to pay tuition fees. By leaving out students from poorer backgrounds, you're doing a great disservice to the nation by ensuring that some great minds may never reach their full potential in society. That is why educational funding is the government's job.

... the father, 30 or 40 years from now has to go into a nursing home. He asks his son to help pay. His son responds "If you will become a democrat, I will pay for whatever nursing home you want. Otherwise, you are on your own." After all, the father could get a job, take out loans, and has a steady income in the form of social security that probably exceeds the income the boy can make as a part time worker, full time student.
Any parent who relies on his/her children to care for her/him in their old age is truly desperate. Given the state of the world, expecting support of any sort from grown children, now most likely with children of their own, is living in a fool's paradise and placing totally unrealistic and unfair expectations on your children.

After reading some of these posts, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people outside the liberal mindset see them as lazy slobs.

This kid is a good example of that.

Okay, the dad is a bit of a prick. Joining a political party to get funds for a college education is retarded.

But for all we know, it might not be the 'join the GOP' thing, but instead the kid acting a like dumb shit.

This is my favorite part


"If he doesn't get money from his parents, he's going to need to raise it on the Internet because he's not going to get it from this administration," Ms. Smith said. "Republicans in Congress have cut more than $12 billion in student aid."


What? RAISE on the internet?

No wonder people view kids as slackers or liberals are lazy socialists. Haven't this dumbass kid ever heard of working for a college education?

Let me tell you about my little situation. When I first hit 18, my mom told me to either pay rent or get the hell out.

I started working.

When I got my first tax return, my mom said "You're an adult, you figure it out"

I did.

When I first applied to college, my mom said "I'll only drive you there, but you're paying for it"

I saved up money.

When I dropped out of college first semester, my mom said "You better find another job and start paying for your food"

I did, and I chip in 20 or 30 bucks a week on groceries, alongside with my monthly payment.

I'm 21 right now, still living with my parents, and recently unemployed because the business I worked for went bankrupt. But there is one thing I have over this kid and probably many others: I have work ethics, responsibility, and a bit of independence.

When I see shit like "Raise money for my college education", all it tells me is either the parents failed to raise their son or the liberals really brainwashed this fucking kid to be a lazy leech of society. Working is SO out of the question, instead he needs other people to pay for his pretend political martyr cause to get a college education. Instead of working several part time jobs or a decent full time for about a year or two like I had to do, he is whoring out to get more money just show his dad that bush is the future hitler.

Great work kid. Thank you for showing me my original reason why I vote conservative over liberal.

Another tip, wear the hat the right way and shave a bit. A goatee would look so much better then the mess you have called a beard. No decent job would hire someone who came out of the early 90s.

I do take issue with this...a parent should love their child. Love is, in its very nature, unconditional.
so, you equate the giving of money with love? Who is to say the man doesn't love his son?

The father is not punitively acting against the boy, he is withholding a 'prize', as a way of reinforcing 'lines should not be transgressed'.

The son is not on crack.
The son is not robbing banks.
The son did not become an alcoholic.
The son is not overeating.
The son is not joining Scientology.
The son is not even gay, which would still be wrong to withhold money over.

The son is joining a POLITICAL PARTY. This is not a line, there IS NO LINE HERE. The son is exercising his constitutional right, to, YES, DISAGREE WITH HIS FATHER POLITICALLY! THIS ISN'T CROSSING A LINE! THERE IS NO LINE!

If this forum still exists a few years from now, I'm betting we'll see the son telling the father to become a Democrat or fend for himself when it comes to nursing homes. I'll simply call it turnabout, but I'm betting that the people that support the father here will cry foul when it's about the father not getting cash. And yes, if it was ANOTHER son that did this to ANOTHER father, I'd cry foul too.

This debate isn't about whether the son or the father is responsible for paying for the college education. It is about morals.

The father is obviously willing and able to pay for his sons college education but ONLY IF his son changes his political views.

By trying to buy his sons political loyalty, the father demonstrates a disregard for the democratic principles that the US was founded upon.

Not only are the father's, actions in this regard unethical but also IMHO criminal.

Vote buying is illegal?

I will leave you with this quote that I found:

"The Democratic Party can never be an adult party; they buy votes to get elected and it's the only way they get elected. If Republicans won't be an adult party, America won't have one." -- Republican Congressman Tom Feeney

"The Democratic Party can never be an adult party; they buy votes to get elected and it's the only way they get elected. If Republicans won't be an adult party, America won't have one." -- Republican Congressman Tom Feeney

Says the member of the party that cheated its way into presidence...

Says the member of the party that cheated its way into presidence...
I just found it so hypocritical that it was a natural for this thread. ;)

Says the member of the party that cheated its way into presidence...

Now this is utter hogwash but then again, I already know you won't look at the evidence.

Now this is utter hogwash but then again, I already know you won't look at the evidence.
I didn't realize Republicans washed their hogs. I thought they just hired illegal migrant workers to do that sort of thing for them.

I just found it so hypocritical that it was a natural for this thread. ;)

At least the Democrats buy their votes cheaper.

Or: At least the Democrats BUY votes rather than ROBBING them (as is the case with the father).

At least the Democrats buy their votes cheaper.

Or: At least the Democrats BUY votes rather than ROBBING them (as is the case with the father).

I really hate conspiracy theories.

I really hate conspiracy theories.
I really hate dirty hogs.

I have no problem with a child of mine opposing me or my beliefs or opinions. If they can do it with respect, logic, and common sense to the point where I can honestly agree to disagree, then I respect them for coming to their own conclusions. However, if they're merely parroting a Right or Left demagogue and haven't thought through their own position as it relates to their experiences in their life, I can't respect that. I think I'd still give some basic assistance, but there's no way I'd go above and beyond for a kid of mine who decided to go to either Bob Jones University OR The Evergreen State College.

I think the parents who hover like ideological vultures over their childrens' heads and attempt less to guide than to enforce -- these people are attempting to live vicariously through their children (no better than the obsessive stage mother or athlete/military-kissing father) and need psychological help before they do serious damage to their progeny.

I really hate conspiracy theories.
You really should take your hatred to another thread? We are talking about dishonest Republicon fathers here. :D

You really should take your hatred to another thread? We are talking about dishonest Republicon fathers here. :D

And if you read what I said here, I don't agree with what he is doing. If I had a son who was a dem, I'd still help pay for his college education.

And if you read what I said here, I don't agree with what he is doing. If I had a son who was a dem, I'd still help pay for his college education.
Suuuuurrrrrrrreee :p

The whole not paying for college thing occurs in my hometown not only if an elephant goes donkey, but if a Spartan becomes a wolverine. Crazy, huh?
I dunno -- my mother would have castigated me for going to Ann Arbor. Luckily my family moved to Seattle before I had to compare the two Michigan uberschools. Personally, that whole Midwest thing where people are judged based on which school they paid too much to attend is kinda stupid. I chose to go to a school whose student body didn't outnumber the population of the city it was in.

Suuuuurrrrrrrreee :p

I would help pay for it. He is my son and I would still love him.

this father should be so proud of his son that he bores the guys down at the club with his constant bragging.

The son is not on crack.
The son is not robbing banks.
The son did not become an alcoholic.
The son is not overeating.
The son is not joining Scientology.
The son is not even gay, which would still be wrong to withhold money over.

The son is joining a POLITICAL PARTY. This is not a line, there IS NO LINE HERE. The son is exercising his constitutional right, to, YES, DISAGREE WITH HIS FATHER POLITICALLY! THIS ISN'T CROSSING A LINE! THERE IS NO LINE!

All of which is irrelevent. The father doesn't HAVE to pay for college for his son. If he CHOOSES to, that is his decision. If he chooses NOT to, THAT is his decision, too.

You may not agree with his reasons. I may not agree with his reasons.

But, the father can pay or not pay - and it is his own choice. Hell, he could choose not to pay because the kid has a haircut he doesn't like... the REASON he chooses to pay or not, is irrelevent.

This debate isn't about whether the son or the father is responsible for paying for the college education. It is about morals.

The father is obviously willing and able to pay for his sons college education but ONLY IF his son changes his political views.

By trying to buy his sons political loyalty, the father demonstrates a disregard for the democratic principles that the US was founded upon.

Not only are the father's, actions in this regard unethical but also IMHO criminal.

Vote buying is illegal?

I will leave you with this quote that I found:

"The Democratic Party can never be an adult party; they buy votes to get elected and it's the only way they get elected. If Republicans won't be an adult party, America won't have one." -- Republican Congressman Tom Feeney

The father isn't trying to buy a vote... he is trying to influence which party his son identifies with.

It has nothing to do with legality. I'd argue it has just as little to do with 'morality' or 'ethics'.

What it DOES have to do with, is the parent's right to choose whether or not to buy an education. And, how do we normally conduct purchases? We evaluate the pro and con elements, and weigh up how much we need a thing.

I want a new PC... do I need a shit-hot graphics card... no, because I won't play games on it. How much does it cost? Do I still want it.

This father is willing to spend his money, buying an education for his son, IF the 'benefits' of the deal are preceived to line-up. And, at the moment, he just isn't seeing the conditions he wants, so he opts not to buy.

All of which is irrelevent. The father doesn't HAVE to pay for college for his son. If he CHOOSES to, that is his decision. If he chooses NOT to, THAT is his decision, too.

Actually that is irrelevent to the topic at hand. The discussion is not about his right to pay or not.

It's why he is not paying.


You may not agree with his reasons. I may not agree with his reasons.

Actually you do since you are defending him rather heartily.


But, the father can pay or not pay - and it is his own choice. Hell, he could choose not to pay because the kid has a haircut he doesn't like... the REASON he chooses to pay or not, is irrelevent.

A haircut issue would make him a bigger asshole.

But do continue the strawman. It's fun.

Hate to burst anyone's preconceived notions of conservatives or Republicans, , and I am both, but I kinda think the man is an asshole, too. Your kids are your kids, and their politics shouldn't enter into it. To do any differently is being less than honest with yourself, and being unfair to them. You have a responsibility to them to give them the best start in life you can. To do what he did is rather petulant, to say the least.

Hate to burst anyone's preconceived notions of conservatives or Republicans*snip*

Actually I think this is one of those rare instances where people are snarking "those damn libs/cons...."

But I agree, it's your duty to help your kids the best you can as your parents tried to help you......

Actually that is irrelevent to the topic at hand. The discussion is not about his right to pay or not.

It's why; he is not paying.


Really? The topic of the thread, based on the first post, would surely have been 'is the father an asshole'?

The 'reason' the father doesn't sponsor the child's education is actually irrelevent, because we are basically arguing that a parent SHOULD pay for his/her child to get educated, regardless of other issues.

Also - if you look back at my post, I ws responding to another poster... who was responding to a point I made. In the context of the point I made... the other poster WAS being 'irrelevent'.



Actually you do since you are defending him rather heartily.


I suggest you actually read my posts.


A haircut issue would make him a bigger asshole.

But do continue the strawman. It's fun.

I have no idea what the point is you are trying to make. I'm beginning to believe you just want to contradict anything I say.

Yes, not paying for school because your kid has a crappy haircut IS a crappy justification. But, the fact remains, no matter how you or I see it, the parent - EVEN in THOSE circumstances - is allowed to make his (or her) OWN choice.

...it's your duty to help your kids the best you can as your parents tried to help you......

Where in the article does it say that the 'father' received 'help' from his parents?

Really? The topic of the thread, based on the first post, would surely have been 'is the father an asshole'?


Yes. He is an asshole and that is the topic. His "rights" are not the debate. You are trying to make it into this argument.


The 'reason' the father doesn't sponsor the child's education is actually irrelevent, because we are basically arguing that a parent SHOULD pay for his/her child to get educated, regardless of other issues.

As a good parent, yes he should help anyway he can as to give his child a good start in life.

*SNIP*

I have no idea what the point is you are trying to make. I'm beginning to believe you just want to contradict anything I say.

Yes, not paying for school because your kid has a crappy haircut IS a crappy justification. But, the fact remains, no matter how you or I see it, the parent - EVEN in THOSE circumstances - is allowed to make his (or her) OWN choice.

Yes he can make his choice that was never the argument here.

Everybody here has declared him to be a major asshole because of his choice and yet you argue he isn't as he is simply following his "rights."

Where in the article does it say that the 'father' received 'help' from his parents?

Try and read the statement again.

Hm. I've been reading the discussion between BF and GnI and I'd like to add something.
Parents are legally required to support their children's higher education in Germany, unless they don't earn enough. You have the legal right to sue your parents if they don't.

Try and read the statement again.

Okay... you said "...it's your duty to help your kids the best you can as your parents tried to help you......"

Fine.

So - that was either random 'sharing' (thanks for that), or on topic, one assumes?

If it WAS on topic (and, since we are posting in a topic thread, one would hope so)... then one has to assume that we are saying it is ALSO this guy's 'duty' to 'help' his kids the best he can, as his parents tried to help him.... no?

Hm. I've been reading the discussion between BF and GnI and I'd like to add something.
Parents are legally required to support their children's higher education in Germany, unless they don't earn enough. You have the legal right to sue your parents if they don't.

Interesting. What brought that law around?

Hm. I've been reading the discussion between BF and GnI and I'd like to add something.
Parents are legally required to support their children's higher education in Germany, unless they don't earn enough. You have the legal right to sue your parents if they don't.

Well... that's cool and groovy in Germany... but this guy lives in Texas.

As a question about that, though...

Does this mean that the CHILD gets to decide? (If you see what I mean).

I mean - if the child decides he/she wants to go to college, the parents have no choice but to sponsor him or her?

Or - can they actually just refuse, and the kid is up the creek?

Interesting. What brought that law around?Not sure. The German higher education system is technically free, though that's apparently changing now. I only have to pay immatriculation fees to my university. If my parents earned enough money though, they'd be required to pay for my other living costs (such as rent, food, etc). Kids from such families usually take on a parttime job to share the costs with their parents

Yes. He is an asshole and that is the topic. His "rights" are not the debate. You are trying to make it into this argument.

As a good parent, yes he should help anyway he can as to give his child a good start in life.

Yes he can make his choice that was never the argument here.

Everybody here has declared him to be a major asshole because of his choice and yet you argue he isn't as he is simply following his "rights."

I believe the problem is that you are imposing your own prejudices on other people, is all.

YOU think parents should pay for their kids to go to college, no matter what... therefore, by your rules, this guy is now 'an asshole', because he doesn't agree with you.

I'm pointing out that, your opinion aside, there is no EMPIRICAL reason why the parent MUST pay good money for his kid to go to college... and that, while you might disagree with HIS opinions, that does not mean the guy is an asshole, or a 'bad parent'... as has been raised a number of times.

I'm not defending the guys decision... I'm defending his 'right' to make that decision, and defending against the assertion that this particular guy's approach to parenting automatically qualifies as some kind of empirical 'bad parenting'.

Well... that's cool and groovy in Germany... but this guy lives in Texas.

As a question about that, though...

Does this mean that the CHILD gets to decide? (If you see what I mean).

I mean - if the child decides he/she wants to go to college, the parents have no choice but to sponsor him or her?

Or - can they actually just refuse, and the kid is up the creek?
If they refuse, the child can sue them. If the parents earn enough, they are obliged to provide financial assistance. If anything, the child has a right to recieve its "Kindergeld" (child-money, a set fee paid to the parents to help raise the child).
In reality, I suppose some children sue their parents while others just shrug it off and get a job, scholarship, or live off their savings.

If they refuse, the child can sue them. If the parents earn enough, they are obliged to provide financial assistance. If anything, the child has a right to recieve its "Kindergeld" (child-money, a set fee paid to the parents to help raise the child).
In reality, I suppose some children sue their parents while others just shrug it off and get a job, scholarship, or live off their savings.

See - that just seems wrong to me... the government has instituted a process whereby someone who might not even still be a dependent, can decide, against parental wishes, that they want to go to college... and the parent suddenly has to front the cash?

See - that just seems wrong to me... the government has instituted a process whereby someone who might not even still be a dependent, can decide, against parental wishes, that they want to go to college... and the parent suddenly has to front the cash?The decision is up to the kid anyway. If the parents can afford it, they have to pay.

The father isn't trying to buy a vote... he is trying to influence which party his son identifies with.

It has nothing to do with legality. I'd argue it has just as little to do with 'morality' or 'ethics'.
It has everything to do with morality and ethics. You disagree thats fine.

What it DOES have to do with, is the parent's right to choose whether or not to buy an education. And, how do we normally conduct purchases? We evaluate the pro and con elements, and weigh up how much we need a thing.
And according to the article, the father has made an "evaluation", which you seem to continuously overlook, that he will pay for his sons college, IF and only IF, he son becomes a Republican.

I want a new PC... do I need a shit-hot graphics card... no, because I won't play games on it. How much does it cost? Do I still want it.
Irrelevant and off topic filler.

This father is willing to spend his money, buying an education for his son, IF the 'benefits' of the deal are preceived to line-up. And, at the moment, he just isn't seeing the conditions he wants, so he opts not to buy.
Your analogy is flawed. IF his son is educated as a "Republican", then the quality of his education would somehow be more "beneficial"?????

The son's political loyalty is NOT FOR SALE. And yes, the father is an asshole for obvious reasons.

I'm not defending the guys decision... I'm defending his 'right' to make that decision, and defending against the assertion that this particular guy's approach to parenting automatically qualifies as some kind of empirical 'bad parenting'.

Again, no one's disagreeing that this is this guy's right. But it's our right to call him a dickhead father for making his support for his son conditional. You can't defend against the assertion because it's our opinion of the man. You aren't going to logically debate against a bunch of opinions. Nothing you say in any attempt to rationalize this is going to convince me that "I'm only going to support you if you think the same way as me" is a bad parenting technique.

I believe the problem is that you are imposing your own prejudices on other people, is all.

YOU think parents should pay for their kids to go to college, no matter what... therefore, by your rules, this guy is now 'an asshole', because he doesn't agree with you.


I give you credit for attempting to defend untenable position.

We have labeled him an asshole because of his reasons. Nobody has said he is required to pay. Just that he SHOULD pay.


I'm pointing out that, your opinion aside, there is no EMPIRICAL reason why the parent MUST pay good money for his kid to go to college...


Well that is your opinion and you are free to have it.

Most of us feel we should help our children starting out in life.


and that, while you might disagree with HIS opinions, that does not mean the guy is an asshole, or a 'bad parent'... as has been raised a number of times.


His reasons are why he is an asshole. Keep trying to dismiss it; nobody is buying it.

Again, it's one thing were he can't pay. It's also another thing if he told the boy "I paid for mine and you should pay for yours."

He is an asshole for saying he would pay if the boy joins the Republicans.


I'm not defending the guys decision... I'm defending his 'right' to make that decision, and defending against the assertion that this particular guy's approach to parenting automatically qualifies as some kind of empirical 'bad parenting'.

You would not be defending him if you simply argued over his right to make the decision. Nobody here said he had no right.

You are defending him by the fact you argue he is not an asshole and or a bad parent.

It has everything to do with morality and ethics. You disagree thats fine.


A blanket assertion? Well, I can't fight an argument like that... oh wait, I can't find an argument in that.


And according to the article, the father has made an "evaluation", which you seem to continuously overlook, that he will pay for his sons college, IF and only IF, he son becomes a Republican.


Which is up to him.

The father COULD just say he wasn't going to pay at all.

Apparently you would prefer that?


Irrelevant and off topic filler.


Not at all. It is an 'illustration'... allegory, if you will.


Your analogy is flawed. IF his son is educated as a "Republican", then the quality of his education would somehow be more "beneficial"?????


To my way of thinking? No.

But then, this isn't my son, or my money.


The son's political loyalty is NOT FOR SALE. And yes, the father is an asshole for obvious reasons.

Everytime someone casts a 'swing' vote, based on party advertising... they show that political loyalties ARE for sale. (And that is, arguably, a good thing.... no one should EVER casts votes for a party JUST because of the name of that party). But that is not what this father is pushing.... he's not talking 'loyalties'... he's talking 'membership'.

Again, no one's disagreeing that this is this guy's right. But it's our right to call him a dickhead father for making his support for his son conditional. You can't defend against the assertion because it's our opinion of the man. You aren't going to logically debate against a bunch of opinions. Nothing you say in any attempt to rationalize this is going to convince me that "I'm only going to support you if you think the same way as me" is a bad parenting technique.

A 'good' parenting technique, surely?

I'm not really fighting the opinion issue... because I'm just not a person to whore myself to popular opinion.

I'm talking about something empirical. Opinions aside, the father is not doing anything to hurt anyone... and, though I do not agree with his stance, it is HIS decision to make... and doesn't equate to being an 'asshole', of any empirical measure.

Similarly, you or I may dislike what the decision stands for... but that is not the equivalent of any empirical assay of 'bad parenting'.

Back to the illustration I offered earlier, I despise the idea of 'raising a child into ONE religion'. I consider it practically brainwashing, to force one's spiritual beliefs on another, before they have the capacity to debate or question it.

But, my opinion doesn't make those who DO raise their children that way, 'bad parents'.... just NOT the kind of parent I try to be.

I'm sure it's been said at least once, but paying for your own education will certainly not cause any harm, either. It's one of those character-building efforts that are found so often in life.

That said, I've paid the balance of educational expenses for my kids because I can. Looking back, it's a better use of my money than the lake house. If I keep repeating that for the next few years, I might even believe it:).

I give you credit for attempting to defend untenable position.

We have labeled him an asshole because of his reasons. Nobody has said he is required to pay. Just that he SHOULD pay.


And, perhaps, according to the father in question, his son SHOULD join the Republican party.

"Should" shoes no horses.


Well that is your opinion and you are free to have it.

Most of us feel we should help our children starting out in life.


As do I... and I do everything I can to do so.

One could also argue, however, that this father is doing EXACTLY the same, as he sees it.


His reasons are why he is an asshole. Keep trying to dismiss it; nobody is buying it.

Again, it's one thing were he can't pay. It's also another thing if he told the boy "I paid for mine and you should pay for yours."

He is an asshole for saying he would pay if the boy joins the Republicans.


So - you would prefer he opt not to pay under any conditions?


You would not be defending him if you simply argued over his right to make the decision. Nobody here said he had no right.

You are defending him by the fact you argue he is not an asshole and or a bad parent.

If you have read any of my posts, but especially the one you are replying to.... I am not trying to defend the guy's reasons, or even his decision.

My issue is that the decision is his, and, just because his political platform might not match with your own... doesn't equate to 'bad parenting'.

It is what I perceive as an 'appeal to emotion'....

And, perhaps, according to the father in question, his son SHOULD join the Republican party.

"Should" shoes no horses.

The son is not the focus of the discussion. Nice deflection attempt.


As do I... and I do everything I can to do so.

One could also argue, however, that this father is doing EXACTLY the same, as he sees it.

Doubtful. As others have said. No parent tries to force their kids to think the way they do.


So - you would prefer he opt not to pay under any conditions?

Good deflection attempt.


If you have read any of my posts, but especially the one you are replying to.... I am not trying to defend the guy's reasons, or even his decision.

My issue is that the decision is his, and, just because his political platform might not match with your own... doesn't equate to 'bad parenting'.

It is what I perceive as an 'appeal to emotion'....

Again the deflection attempt. My politics is not the question here. If the asshole was a democrat and did the same deal for the democratic party I would still call him an asshole and say he is a bad parent.

And yet again; nobody here questions his right to make his choice. We just think he is an asshole for doing that to his son.

That is hillarious.

My politics is not the question here.

On the contrary, I think that's the whole issue. Politics isn't just which party you vote for.

On the contrary, I thin that's the whole issue. Politics isn't just which party you vote for.

Oh ok. For fun why don't you explain my politics then.

That is hillarious.

That's nice.

A blanket assertion? Well, I can't fight an argument like that... oh wait, I can't find an argument in that.

Which is up to him.

The father COULD just say he wasn't going to pay at all.

Apparently you would prefer that?

Not at all. It is an 'illustration'... allegory, if you will.

To my way of thinking? No.

But then, this isn't my son, or my money.

Everytime someone casts a 'swing' vote, based on party advertising... they show that political loyalties ARE for sale. (And that is, arguably, a good thing.... no one should EVER casts votes for a party JUST because of the name of that party). But that is not what this father is pushing.... he's not talking 'loyalties'... he's talking 'membership'.
You are kinda stuck on the merry-go-round, and I think you are enjoying it. I will watch you go around a few more times. :p

Bottom line......the son is not selling his political loyalties. Good for him!!

The point of the whole debate is that the father is an asshole for trying to buy his sons political loyalty. I agree wholeheartedly.

BTW, I won't feel offended if you don't reply. :)

A 'good' parenting technique, surely?

I'm not really fighting the opinion issue... because I'm just not a person to whore myself to popular opinion.

I'm talking about something empirical. Opinions aside, the father is not doing anything to hurt anyone... and, though I do not agree with his stance, it is HIS decision to make... and doesn't equate to being an 'asshole', of any empirical measure.

Similarly, you or I may dislike what the decision stands for... but that is not the equivalent of any empirical assay of 'bad parenting'.

Back to the illustration I offered earlier, I despise the idea of 'raising a child into ONE religion'. I consider it practically brainwashing, to force one's spiritual beliefs on another, before they have the capacity to debate or question it.

But, my opinion doesn't make those who DO raise their children that way, 'bad parents'.... just NOT the kind of parent I try to be.

Fine. I'll rescind. He's not a bad parent. He's a petty and small and selfish, pathetic excuse for a human being, to think he can purchase his son's political loyalties with a college education. A better human being, one that didn't hinge financial support on parrotting, wouldn't care what political party someone he loved was a part of, and would attempt to support said person without any small contingencies such as this. He might be a great parent. But he's a lousy person.

That's nice.

*shugs*

There's no law against not being a nice person.

Anyway, at worst this kid is going to have to work through collage. Is that really so bad?

*shugs*

There's no law against not being a nice person.

Anyway, at worst this kid is going to have to work through collage. Is that really so bad?
apparently it is. :rolleyes: