lol first of all, I do like this whole flip idea. Funny clip though!
I maight be a bit confused, but is the point children not being responsible for their actions compared to Goverment not being responsible? At the end parents and the people (the taxpayers) are responsible. At least that’s what Goverment thinks and that’s why they are so careless and irresponsible. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just trying to flip flop things a bit to get to it.
If I’m right, I totally agree!
The point was that children not having liability for their actions is an indication that obviously he and I both know there's something different about a child than an adult. And I'm suggesting that you develop autonomy and liability at the same time.
Kids (of a young enough age) are dependent on adults, and adults are autonomous actors, is essentially my point.
So a child depending on an adult shouldn't suggest that adults depend on other adults via the rules they create with a state. (It's just an ex post facto attempt at rationalizing statism, like it doesn't actually add up and make sense that because we're dependent as children that we should create an institution for other adults to make rules back and forth at each other, that just doesn't connect or make any sense.)
by the by my way of parenting wouldn't include a lot of the rules that I'm guessing my friend uses.. so whether what he's talking about is even necessary is probably debatable in its own right.. but I didn't want to go off track and my answer was just going with it and assuming that "making rules" for kids is appropriate
(of course I grab a child before they walk into the lake .. but really you should be talking about how there's a lake and it would suck to fall in etc etc before it gets to that point .. so physically grabbing them is a last resort not really the plan A of how you do it)
I think I got your point. The way children are being raised by being too dependent on parents is affecting their life and dependence when they grow up. I’m aware you are not left, just like Me. That’s their goal for us to be dependent on them and we are helping them thanks the way we raise our children. Parenting is way important for the next generations.
At the end you have a great point.
Parenting definitely important. To be clear tho, I actually have a slightly different take: I think kids depending on parents is fine and probably even good. It's natural that kids depend on parents.
Kids can't get their own resources. As a parent you want to provide. It's fine that they depend. They also depend emotionally and for guidance and life lessons etc. So I'm not saying that children are too dependent on parents, no.
(If anything I probably think the opposite -- that too many parents aren't involved and responsive to their kids. And then they think bedtimes and pointless rules is a substitute for actual parenting.)
It's good to give wiggle room and let kids find their own answers, but at the end of the day it's still fine that they depend on adults.
The stuff about parenting as it relates to the government was a metaphor. My friend was making that metaphor, and I'm basically arguing why the metaphor is faulty. (Because as adults we no longer do depend. As children it's normal to depend, as adults we are autonomous and it's not clear why my friend believes we now depend on rules created by other adults.)
lol believe me, I’m more confused now then I was before. But I think I finally have your last point. And congratulation to your 2nd anniversary on Steemit!
Have a great day 👍!
ty ty ty !!
and ya, it's a confusing thing.. like I'm pretty sure the point would be crystal clear once I said it the right way or whatever, you'd be like ohh thaaat's what you're saying!!
things can get out of control when metaphors are involved 🙃
@congratulation for your 2nd anniversary on Steemit!
thanks for share with us
thank you so much!!! time flies
welcome
Dear milano1113,
Somehow, I was a bit confused as well. Now, after reading your and @full-measure's comments I understand it, I hope/think.
I will answer @full-measure's comment here too.
Of course children and adults have to be treated differently and they are not the same. More precisely, children at a certain age do not have liability, they first have to develop it (not every child is the same (no sh!t Sherlock haha) but law says that they are (more or less)). "Only" age matters - behavior comes second, I think.
True too.
Wow, mindfnck incoming. I am not sure if I have got your point but as I have already written "(usually) children need adults so children are dependent". Adults need other adults because 'democracy' and stuff - there have to be some certain structures regarding control/regulation... that is why we need the law/institutions and so on.
I am way too confused right now; if you are really talking about/questioning the meaning of the law/states etc. then I do not get it why haha - such structures have to exist (at least on/for 'our world'); anarchy would not be the solution.
Yours truly,
Gandalf The White
It was probably daring of me to post a section of my emails mid-coitus like that.. without all the background flow and whatnot, it probably isn't as clear as I thought it was when I put it up.
But ya, basically it's like he's saying "no coercion? parents coerce kids tho" and I'm saying kids are a different thing.
And the flip-a-roo is I ask him to justify why he thinks 'kids' and 'adults' are the same rather than stay on the defensive where I'm supposed to explain why they're different.
It works both ways, it can't be like his implication that they're the same is taken as fact until I can prove why they're different.
(And seems like "they're different" is the way better default assumption, so long as we assume he goes through his life treating his daughter a little differently than he treats other adults.)
Whether or not this is true, I'm focused specifically on the metaphor of raising kids and why that doesn't parallel correctly to government/democracy.
Ya, I am questioning the idea of having a state. Which doesn't mean I'm questioning the idea of law or structure.
Is it possible to create a structure that I don't get shot or thrown in jail if I choose not to be a part of it?
Structure seems important. Coercion is not. Laws and norms can emerge p2p and peacefully (this happened before the state, and will easily happen after the state). I argue that our "structure" doesn't need to be violently imposed on us. In fact, the only way for it to be balanced and serve humanity correctly is to not be violently imposed.
(The type of structure you're talking about serves the people with the best connections to the power source. Not humanity at large.)