Your Children Are Not Your Children

Thank you iloveme_tatertot.

Love it! Love it! Love it!
Great video!

Every parent should watch this !

UrbanGypsy, I don't think it was Jehovah's Witnesses, I think it was Christian Scientists.

JW's won't accept blood transfusions or kill people in war, but they do go to hospitals and try to get the best of Medical Care. I know, because I was one and I am related to several.

My mistake. Christian Scientists is correct, I'll edit my original comment.

Thank you treewolf for being keeping an open mind about this idea.

Thanks Csmonut. I appreciate your input.

Very beautifully put Mother.

That last bit about HAVING values is roughly where I come from as well. It doesn't seem to me that you can truly indoctrinate the specifics of how a person comes to see right and wrong, but you can, by encouraging them to think about such issues (even by indoctrination), usher them towards SOME sort of values.

For myself, although my sense of values is quite different from my very religious and fundamentalist father's, I definitely credit him for instilling a strong sense of the value of values.

thewhompus, yes I do think it is important for kids to develop a sense of "standing for something." My 16-year-old asked me about that issue not long ago, and I sensed that she wanted me to TELL her which character attributes were most important. I explained that those that I -- a 48-year-old husband and father -- thought were most important were not necessarily (or even likely) the ones that a 16-year-old girl on the cusp of being a woman would think were most important.

I suggested that she consider her friends, teachers, etc and think about the qualities she liked most about them. Was it their honesty? their loyalty? their optimism? Then think about WHY she liked those qualities. Perhaps make a list on a 3X 5 card of the ones that "rise to the top," tape it to the inside of her locker door and then try to emulate those qualities. If, after a while, one or more just don't seem to fit, try out new ones. And expect that over time some will rise and others fall in importance and/or relevance to her life.

Don't stress out about it...but revisit the list from time-to-time to see if she was living up to her own expectations. I was probably lecturing...but the kids I see in her large high school that seem to have the most difficulty are the ones who seem untethered to the concept of character. I had my children relatively late in life...so the idea of foundation is really important to me...just in case something should happen, and I am not around to screw up their lives...heh...

as with my comment to artemis, I'm curious how you arrive at such a conclusion.

Ethics are a pet project of mine, and for a long time I've been trying to see if in fact there's a way to develop an ethical system that DOESN'T rely on an outside arbitrary authority. The idea of 'rights' play right into this notion. So far I've had no luck.

Ethics cannot be distilled down to a legal formula . Reality is too complex .

complexity does not deny structure. Even complex systems can be modeled.

Im sorry if I am not direct in answering your question as Im not sure exactly what you are asking. So I will just elaborate on my thoughts in general and hopefully it does justice....Maybe if I knew a bit more of what you were coming from it could help discussion.....

Personally I teach my children to use critical thinking skills. I ask them of their opinions before giving my own. Many times they ask for my take on things and it prompts me to ask them a question in return...... The hardest one is "what makes bad people bad?" I mean how should I know?? In reality such things are complex and its difficult to get into a discussion of psychological factors with a 3 or 5 yr old....

Ones personal beleifs are their morals... ethics themselves are based on basic right and wrong principles....Like; "Can a psychologist make an adequate diagnosis on a situation without talking extensively to all parties involved??" Even if a psychologist does talk to all people involved, do their own morals interfere with their ability to see the facts clearly??

When it comes to abuse, the definitions are loosely interpreted. I know of a case where parents lost custody because they wanted to force their teenage child to go to church three times a week... Was this means to have governmental interference?? I personally do not think so, but it was classified as abusive behavior.... Morally it can be seen as good, but ethically can a parent truly force their child who is fully cognitave of their environment and certain choices (I say certain because developmental psychologists have proven the teenage brain acts differently in decision making capabilities when it comes to risk and responsability) to do something they do not want to do?? Did the childs actions prompt the parents to feel it was necessary to have him go to church so often, or did they ignore their own parenting style that prompted the rebellios behavior??..... Can a judge make a determination on this having an already overloaded caseload??

regjoeschmo, you are raising many great questions.

I think these are very much the questions Jubal is prompting. My own take was that any attempt to answer such questions about the CAPABILTY of persons to make such judgements must first address their 'right' to do so on a fundamental basis.

This is because, as you point out, such judgements are largely arbitrary and based on the ETHICS of the persons casting judgement. In other words, my problem is that we ourselves lack any fundamental, non-arbitrary ethical system on which to base OUR OWN judgements of such circumstances.

It's a major problem in ethics and one that gives rise to all sorts of abuses (at least following my own probably arbitrary definition of such things).

It seems we need as a species to thresh out some sort of basic proto-ethics upon which other determinations are based. It's possible that such a thing actually exists, and that we simply haven't articulated it yet, or that it doesn't exist and all ethical arguments are inherently bogus.

My point is that many times personal morals supercede ethics, and it should be the other way around. Judges are not critical of themselves, and it is very hard to get a complaint through because the people taking them are peers.....

Yes I am talking about force, among other things, reading all your comments made me think of an example.

My brother's ex grew up in a fundamentalist Christian missionary home. She was never allowed to drink soda pop. When they all moved back to the US from Indonesia, while she attended HS, after school she would go the local 7/11 and purchase a Big Gulp of soda and drink it very fast before she was expected home. In other words, to get around the "no soda" rule, she would do it behind their backs. This set up a pattern in her life of always "breaking the rules" and pretending to be "the perfect little angel."

Often times, the best intentions of parents can backfire and produce unintended consequences. That is why I do not believe in any prohibition when it comes to rules.

So then you might ask, well what about prohibition of running out into the street with oncoming traffic? Or what about a prohibition against violence or murder?

There are universally accepted moral principles, that are against the law, while others are a matter of like what Artemis mentioned, "intangible" morals or rules.

I appreciate the approach that is sensible and values based, but allowing the flexibility for things of a more "intangible" nature.

that assumes you have a functional and meaningful definition of what 'tangible evidence' means, and that everyone agrees with you. 'Tangible evidence' could just as easily be god's voice in your head, and who knows what HE'S prone to say.

You also seem to assume that 'taking care of themselves' has a standardized meaning.

Ultimately, regardless of how you choose to define such things, you're contradicting yourself, still saying, 'you'll believe as I tell you to believe, act as I tell you to act'. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. You're condoning exactly that which you call abusive.

And besides, the central question, at least as I read Jubal's post, is whether we have the RIGHT to do such things. As Jubal points out, there are plenty of people who think they HAVE that right to indoctrinate and 'abuse' a child as you put it.

You seem to have an underlying assumption that people have no 'right' to abuse each other, and I would challenge you to explain exactly how that works, given that definitions of abuse vary so widely (and of course in light of the arguments on rights in my post above).

You will get no help in arguing details from me . I know when I hurt someone . Because I look them in the eyes . Telling a child they are going to burn in HELL , or that different people are EVIL , is what I am referring to . Denying them an education in reality , does not prepare them for life . That is negligent . To not teach them to brush their teeth , for instance . Not good . I tell my son to use his head , but respond with input from the heart . I tell him he dishonors his self when he hurts or hates another , and that he is too valuable to do this to . And to be polite most of the time . That is the limit . The rest is taught by example . If you love your children , there is an element of TRUST involved . He has seen how important personal integrity is to me . I trust him to consider this as an option for his set of personal principals . Love does that . He is not my property , he is my sacred trust .

like I said, you're still indoctrinating them with a specific set of ideas and values, so I'm guessing you actually fall in the 'yes, I have the right to do so' category.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a parent that didn't think that way. Property or sacred trust, we all feel a responsibility to do so, whether we're wacko fundamentalists or relatively sane and respectful people.

I just think we all need to be a little more honest with ourselves about the reality of such things.

Seems to me that all conversation is a subtle attempt to 'impose your ideology on my reality'. We exchange our ideas, some stick, some don't, but the influence or 'imposition' as you put it is always there. We would have much of a dialogue without such exchange.

and thanks for that link, I'll definitely take a look at it when I have more time. Seems interesting.

If you are interested in this conversation , why did you not watch the video ?

Thank you so much for that Johnnie. Peace to you too brother.

Ive been ridiculed by my own family because they thought i was gay... Only because I had friends who were, and didnt have a girlfriend...... Sometimes peoples' hate and fear of such things causes them to act irrationally. Especially older generations who were brought up to think that it was an absolute horror/abomonation to be gay..... I would like to think we as a society have come past this, but fear still controls too many.....