Computer privileges revoked - permanently!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

*snort* so you are saying I owe the sperm doner that knocked up my mother love and respect because he called himself my father?


you have confused being a sperm or egg provider with being a parent

[TommyGunn]

A solid and strong family inspires mutual loyalty, love and respect.  It does not impose these things with manipulation and threats.  

That only works on Walton's Mountain, in reality, people are imperfect and cr@p happens.

[red headed stranger]

nor does it allow a child to extort by manipulation and game playing.

I never said that a healthy relationship should allow such things. 

and yes thats a natural thing for many kids and most adolescents

And it is up a mature adult not to take the bait.   

That only works on Walton's Mountain, in reality, people are imperfect and cr@p happens.

Sure crap happens. That's why it's up to responsible parents to resolve things without descending to the level of an immature child. 

[MicroBalrog]

You're not answering whether any of the items discussed were gifts. Like the folks writing those NYLA (NYRA?, whatever) articles, you're just talking about them like they were gifts, without bothering to confirm. And still, how can a minor expect "their" property to be outside their parents' control?

I am not sure why you think this "control" is so important.

It might be important  if we were concerned about the legalities of this situation. Clearly it is all legal and would probably be legal even in the most just society.

But it is still legal to be an a-hole, and it does not mean that these people should aspire to be one.

[MicroBalrog]

Ernest Thompson Seton's books seem relevant here.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how?

[BlueStarLizzard]

*snort* so you are saying I owe the sperm doner that knocked up my mother love and respect because he called himself my father?


you have confused being a sperm or egg provider with being a parent

I figured you knew enough of my story to relize what I was referencing. He didn't leave my life till I kicked his ass out.

He was a parent. A very, very bad one. He changed diapers, cooked dinners and dawdled me on his knee to watch Knightrider.
He also tried to drink himself to death regularly, failed to keep pretty much every promise he ever made and refused to accept the notion that I didn't want to have anything to do with him because being around him hurt too much and scared me.

Like I said, good parents earn respect, love and care from their children.
Bad ones don't.

I owe him nothing for what he did do for me. I don't owe him for the few child support payments he actually made, the presents he remembered to send, the weekly phone calls he made when he was sober (till I refused to talk to him anymore) or anything else he gave me.

Well, except maybe a right hook, a fist in his gut and a knee to the balls. I could give him that much.

Conversly, I would give anything for the man I call Dad to be happy, and I am very aware of the fact that he didn't have to do what he did, but did it anyway. He actually didn't have any obligations to me, as a parent.
I would think earning that kind of love to be more rewarding anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

I am not sure why you think this "control" is so important.

It should be abundantly clear. Parents have nearly  unlimited discretion over what their children do, where they go, how they dress, and yes, what toys and gadgets they have. And I'm not talking legalities here, just what most would consider to be in the realm of ordinary  parenting.

For example, a minor could earn money to buy an MP3 player, but no one would bat an eye if a parent took it away, or didn't allow the child to take it to school. That's normally considered to be within a parent's purview.

So what does it matter who owns the stuff? The parents are in charge.

[Monkeyleg]

Damn, this guy is all anyone is talking about. I just had a meeting this afternoon with some business types, and there was a long discussion about this video.

He should have gotten an ad in his video before he posted it. Could have bought a couple more laptops with the revenues.

[MicroBalrog]

It should be abundantly clear. Parents have nearly  unlimited discretion over what their children do, where they go, how they dress, and yes, what toys and gadgets they have. And I'm not talking legalities here, just what most would consider to be in the realm of ordinary  parenting.

Perhaps parents are in a position of power over their offspring - even offspring who are young adults. But this does not mean that every single action they take is correct, morally or otherwise.

Imagine a child - or a young adult - who keeps his savings in one of these china piglets with a cut on the back. Had a parent taken money from one of these piglets to buy beer, this would be seen by all as a disgusting act. Which it is.

[roo_ster]

Perhaps parents are in a position of power over their offspring - even offspring who are young adults. But this does not mean that every single action they take is correct, morally or otherwise.

Sure.  Who was making that argument, again?

[Perd Hapley]

Sure.  Who was making that argument, again?

Yeah, who?

[BridgeRunner]

So what does it matter who owns the stuff? The parents are in charge.

It matters who owns it because that makes the difference in whether the parent can take it away arbitrarily without being a thief.  A parent can take anything from a minor child if the taking away is part of his role as a parent.  If he's taking it away because he wants it or because it makes him feel powerful or because he wants to sell it and pocket the cash, then there are two possibilities: He's a thief, but can get away with it because the law doesn't mix into parent/child relations; or it belongs to him and the child merely had his permission to use it.

This is one (of the near-infinite number of) really good argument against the apparent trend of giving kids fancy expensive communication devices as gifts.  Good parenting demands that the parent maintain a level of control over the devices.  It's perfectly ok for a parent to take away something he's given a kid for the sake of parenting the kid, but the kid is going to see the parent's motivation in the worst possible light, and feel robbed.  Seems much smarter to me to make it clear to kids that stuff like cars, phones, and computers are owned by the parents and the kid is permitted to use them within the restrictions set by the parent.  Of course, then the parent doesn't get to treat it like a gift, because it isn't.  No "Happy birthday! Here's my car that I'm letting you use for what I tell you to use it for!"  That's not a gift.  

And the kid should be able to get around this by acquiring her own stuff.  I didn't have to worry about my parents taking my car away because I bought my own car and later my own laptop, and my parents respected my ability to own stuff.

Obviously, not talking about the specific case discussed here, as it's entirely unclear to whom the laptop belonged.  

[MicroBalrog]

Yeah, who?

You did.

In your universe, when I held my first job (at the age of 17, thank you) it would be okay for a parent to simply commandeer any money I earned on it, because they had 'control' of my bank account and therefore could get away with it.

In other words, you believe it is okay for parents to steal from their offspring.

The question here is not whether the activity is legal, I remind you.

[roo_ster]

Yes, because an electronic device purchased and maintained by a parent and used by their child with conditions attached is comparable to cash earned from a job...in MB-land I guess.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, because an electronic device purchased and maintained by a parent and used by their child with conditions attached is comparable to cash earned from a job...in MB-land I guess.

Certainly in fistful -land, it is:

For example, a minor could earn money to buy an MP3 player, but no one would bat an eye if a parent took it away, or didn't allow the child to take it to school. That's normally considered to be within a parent's purview.

But of course this doesn't matter.

Property is not necessarily the result of a job. Something gifted is also property.

[Perd Hapley]

A parent can take anything from a minor child if the taking away is part of his role as a parent.  

Yes, that's what I mean. Obviously, it would be wrong to take stuff from a kid, just because.

Seems much smarter to me to make it clear to kids that stuff like cars, phones, and computers are owned by the parents and the kid is permitted to use them within the restrictions set by the parent.  Of course, then the parent doesn't get to treat it like a gift, because it isn't.  No "Happy birthday! Here's my car that I'm letting you use for what I tell you to use it for!"  That's not a gift.  

The parent could also make clear that the gift is not the object itself, but the access to it.

You did.

In your universe, when I held my first job (at the age of 17, thank you) it would be okay for a parent to simply commandeer any money I earned on it, because they had 'control' of my bank account and therefore could get away with it.

In other words, you believe it is okay for parents to steal from their offspring.

The question here is not whether the activity is legal, I remind you.

No, I never said anything like that. I'm not sure what I could say to make myself more clear. I'm sorry if you didn't understand.

[Perd Hapley]

Certainly in fistful -land, it is:

Only to the extent that a parent is morally allowed (even morally obligated) to take something from their child if it is in the child's best interest.

But of course this doesn't matter.

Property is not necessarily the result of a job. Something gifted is also property.

I know that perfectly well, thank you.


What if we put it this way? How is the property of a minor child not subject to a parent's whim, if the child himself is subject to it?

[BridgeRunner]

What if we put it this way? How is the property of a minor child not subject to a parent's whim, if the child himself is subject to it?

The child isn't.  The child is subject to her parents' control in their capacity as parents.  That's why child abuse and incest are illegal--a child is not subject to a parent's whims.

Other power trips or manipulations a parent indulges in at the expense of his child for his own purposes that don't have anything to do with parenting her are also wrong, they're just harder to demarcate.  Well, and usually somewhat less evil.  But still wrong.  And strictly speaking, not within the bounds of the law.  That is, of course, debatable, as there's no remedy available to the child when she is subjected to her parent's non-parenting whims. 

[MicroBalrog]

Only to the extent that a parent is morally allowed (even morally obligated) to take something from their child if it is in the child's best interest.

You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

What if we put it this way? How is the property of a minor child not subject to a parent's whim, if the child himself is subject to it?

Short answer: he/she isn't.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that would differ not just with reality but with your own experience/trevails as related to us here

[Perd Hapley]

I cannot face-palm hard enough to deal with what I have just read. It is beyond obvious that I'm neither defending the abuse or neglect of children, nor making the patently false claim that such is legally or morally acceptable. Maybe that's why I said almost unlimited discretion. Why, it's almost as if I made that clear from the start.  And why would I claim that it's ok for parents to be capricious or cruel? That is obviously not my point, either.

But other than that, yes BR and MB, you are correct. Parents do not tell children when to sleep and when to wake up. Or what to eat or not eat. Or what to wear. Or where they can go, or how long they can sit in their room using the MP3 player they just bought or received as a gift.

No, minors are perfectly free to dispose of themselves and their property in any way they choose.


Seriously, though, I could see the moral issue with destroying something that a child has earned or been given as a gift. But merely taking the item away doesn't qualify as stealing. Maybe if the item were destroyed, or sold for the parent's profit, or for the parent's selfish use. Aside from something like that, parents can't really steal from their children, because parents are in charge of their childrens' property just as much as they are in charge of the child.

Also, not everything a parent provides to a child is given as a gift. Assuming so muddies the waters a bit.

[MicroBalrog]

Why is it difficult to parse what I say?

Have I stated that parents are not capable of exercising a broad variety of whims? No, of course they are. But - while it is fully legal, and of course a person's individual right, to be a jackwagon, they still are a jackwagon.

Indeed, a parent could get up in the morning and, say, spend the first 30 minutes of the day lining his children up in a neat row and insulting them. Or, say, steal items from their bedrooms while they're off at school. There's no law against it, and if there is, it cannot be enforced. But a parent who does this is a jackwagon. That person in the video? Jackwagon.

I respect fully his freedom to be a jackwagon, and also my freedom to call him that.

[Perd Hapley]

It's not difficult. You said children are not subject to parents' whims. Then you said they are. Translation: you're confused.

I haven't said that jackwagon parents are not jackwagons. I didn't even say that the laptop shooter was not a jackwagon.

Please see my added paragraphs in the above post.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's not difficult. You said children are not subject to parents' whims. Then you said they are. Translation: you're confused. = adolescent angst