Operating a motor vehicle is a physical coordination task - not analogous to raising children in any way.
If you cannot learn how to be a good parent before hand via second hand knowledge, then there would be no such thing as a good parent. Where did you learn what you used to parent?
My entire point is - by the time your son is 16 you should be able to trust him to have the door closed without him doing things you don't want him to. If you cannot trust him to do that then you cannot trust him to go over to his friend's place, to be out of your supervision after school, etc.
As someone else pointed out - human biological maturity is achieved at 13 - they failed to point out that neurological maturity is somewhere between there and about 22. I know plenty of people my age who I wouldn't trust with a decision worth are damn - including people who have graudated with 4-year-degrees. I also know some people the age of your son that I would trust at the console of a nuclear missile silo with superuser access.
A good parent should be able to trust their 16 year old to follow their guidance, even with "the door closed" (literally and figuratively) if that parent's teachings are reasonable. (However if the parents teachings are not reasonable, I think many 16 year olds are mature enough to know better and will defy their parents - but I also know many 16 year olds who are mature enough to know their parents are wrong: but not mature enough to do the right thing in the guidance vacuum)
try looking elsewhere in the thread. Furthermore implying that a changed perspective means your opinion changes 100% of the time is also a fallacy. I find it highly unlikely that any additional perspective that I will gain from entering the breeding community will significantly change my opinions on the matter because my opinions are based on a great ammount of observation - and I'm not one given to letting my emotions rule my decisions.
there you go tossing around personal insults again. I would say that you're the one not mature enough for slashdot. My karma happens to be excellent, and if some moderators want to get chewed up by the metamoderates by marking my posts as flamebait then they can be my guest. Apparently the honest opinion of someone CAN be flamebait as well - because I sure have started a flamewar with my only semi-serious comment about the fact that "keep the door open tommy" seems a little bit puritanical and helicopter-parenting (hovering) to me.
Yes i'm 22 fricken years old, but I also have been dating the same woman for 4 years, am getting married to her in 3 months. I am an uncle, I have several of male coworkers as examples of fairly good parents, I have observed the mistakes and successes of my parents with my brother and myself. I have my own expirience when I was 16, I have the mistakes and succeses of those around me to learn from.
Knowledge and wisdom doesn't require first hand expirience - the only thing I haven't yet expirience is the emotional part of it, and I am not given to letting my emotions have any role in my decision making what-so-ever, except where it has a valid part. Determining if I can trust any offspring I have in the future is completely a logical decision, not an emotional one, so emotion will not have a voice in the decision.
I would once again remind you, you're the one that turned it into a personal insult match.
no there really isn't - all the insurance companies are ageist bigots who charge less for people twice my age with recent at-fault accidents than they charge people my age who have perfect, spotless, driving records - or if there is one I've certainly never heard of them
actually you're wrong - infact in many states the law even agrees with me - the person not going with the flow of traffic is the one created the hazard. I have known people to get out of traffic tickets because of the fact that they were going with the flow of traffic - especially when the flow of traffic is traveling at the engineering study rating of the road and the road's speed limit is posted under what the engineering studies rated it for.
It's a problem of things differing in theory and practice, and theoreticians never having practiced.
and contrary to the arrogant assertions ot the practicioners that doesn't automatically make the theoreticians incorrect - infact in almost every field I know the theoreticians are the smarter ones who are right more often, the practicioners merely attempt to implement the ideas of the theoriticians.
Your points are right in theory, but you forgot to account for emotion (both parent-child and boyfriend-girlfriend)
no I didn't fail to account for them, I just expect people to be able to make rational decisions despite their emotions - all my friends are capable of doing so, and my children will be taught to be capable of doing so.
and morality (which ought to be slightly more than logic strictly requires).
argument from morality get us no-where - especially since much of america runs on authoritarian morality with no logic behind it and my "moral system" is 100% based upon logic and human rights
And there's no way to account for those factors in theory, because they only arise in practice.
apparently you're unfamiliar with the fields of psychology and sociology.
You will note I objected to the blanket statement, and you're giving specific-case that you have in mind of someone who isn't. Not exactly a level argument eh?
But: There's a reason auto insurance rates don't drop until you're 25 though... trust your teen to lie to your or be stupid from time to time. Create an environment in which they can talk to you about their screw-ups, but do your part to ensure those screwups aren't as likely to happen also.
yup, and those of us under 25 with better driving records than you pay more because of that kind of blanket statement thinking, and quite frankly that should be illegal - if the state is going to require me to have insurance on my vehicle (for good reason) then they should require that my driving record is treated fairly.
I didn't refute you "point by point" because you didn't make any valid points.
bullocks, perhaps you should try reading and processing the information in my post. However your Inpenetrable Shield of Arrogance apparently is preventing that.
Personally, I think it's realism.
I'm not disagreeing with you about it being able to change persepctive, I'm disagreeing with your implication that one's opinion is not valid simply because they haven't expirience something.
I haven't expirienced infection with AIDS - does that mean my opinion that AIDS is bad is invalid? I haven't expirienced incarceration for committing a crime - does that mean my opinion that committing a crime is a bad thing?... ad nauseum...
I'm sorry that you think it's arrogance.
then don't act arrogant
I've certainly made mistakes along the way
such as enrolling your child in a program run by the Bigot Scouts of America, I hope he didn't have any anti-religious-minority (anti-non-religious) and anti-homosexual attitudes from them.
having those irrational urges doesn't mean they're justified in acting on them. As I told someone else - it's arrogance to say that someone cannot have a valid opinion without being a parent - see my other post.
How about trying to actually refute my point by point?
Your statement is presumptious and arrogant. You are assuming that one cannot have knowledge without 1st hand expirience which is patently false. Maybe I'm just more observant than you but I can learn from the mistakes of those around me so that I never make those mistakes myself, and I can read the research of the best child behavioralists and developmental psychologists on the planet.
All your posts has done is to further perpetuate the arrogance of "I'm a parent and therefore I'm automatically right"
From the tone of your posts, I'm guessing you're 20-25 and don't have any children of your own. All I mean by this is that your perspective on these things changes as you raise a child.
and it's arrogance to assume that someone who hasn't yet doesn't know anything.
It's about sending a message.
yes it is, and the message it sends is prudish, and instills a sense of distrust
Explaining through clearly defined rules that him having sex with his girlfriend is not responsible behavior at his age
I completely disagree with this - because it's a blanket statement. Some people are mature enough for intimiate relationships by the age of 16 - in that case protected (IE with a condom) sex isn't a problem.
And the bedroom door rule isn't just to prevent sex. It's also drinking, smoking cigarettes and smoking ANYTHING for that matter.
if they can smuggle alcohol into the room past you then you're inattentive, and if you have to worry about them doing so then you have serious issues with your child - you failed to create a trusting relationship with your child and effectively communicate why underage drinking is bad
if you cannot smell tobacco or cannabis smoke through a closed bedroom door then you have a poor sense of smell, and if your child is smoking either you have yet again failed to effectively communicate why those are bad - my find both absolutely disgusting and instead of simply "blah blah blah don't do that" to my children I will prevent them ever being interested in it by promoting them being athletes and instilling in them the same attitude of "that is disgusting" (and I grew up with my father smoking in the house.. he finally quit last week after 39 years!)
Yes, he is going to have sex if he wants to. He's human, he's a sexual being, and when you're a 16 y/o boy you're about as sexual as a being gets. He took his first playboy from my closet. I let him keep it. I took him to Walgreens when he was 15 and I made him buy a box of condoms.
atleast you're more realistic and much more mature than some parents, kudos to you for that.
What you seem to overlook is that it's about protecting his future. I don't want his dreams to be ruined because he gets his 16 year old girlfriend pregnent.
i thought you said you taught him about condoms?
If I say "Be responsible, don't have sex, but if you have sex, use protection" and then I let him take his gf upstairs and give them complete privacy, what message is that REALLY sending?
that you trust them to be safe if they do choose to do so. all your previous good work is destroyed if you don't give them trust.
Like i said before - if you REALLY have to worry about your child having sex with their SO right under your nose in their bedroom upstairs, simply because you told them to close the door, then you have trust issues
if they're upstairs and you're downstairs do you REALLY think that merely having the door open is going to stop things? have you ever heard of a quickie? seriously.
I was never given a car, but I had free usage of my parents cars. I've never gotten into an at-fault accident (I have had other morons hit me), I've had one speeding ticket my entire life (5 over... I was farking going downhill! anal cop!), etc.
PS: if all of traffic is going 75 in a 70 zone, except you who is going 70 - it is you who is, strictly speaking, the traffic hazard
apparently you've never heard of condoms.. and if you seriously think your 16-year-old and their bf/gf are going to have sex with their parents in the house then there is absolutely nothing that is going to stop them from having sex, just change the time of it.
I didn't have sex the first time until I was 17... my parents never had to do that "zomg keep your door open" shit
that's why government contractors that do this kinda shit (fail to deliver product) should be required to return all the money to the government, and if they don't they can rot in jail and the government will SEIZE their assets
Slashdot Mirror
Operating a motor vehicle is a physical coordination task - not analogous to raising children in any way.
If you cannot learn how to be a good parent before hand via second hand knowledge, then there would be no such thing as a good parent. Where did you learn what you used to parent?
My entire point is - by the time your son is 16 you should be able to trust him to have the door closed without him doing things you don't want him to. If you cannot trust him to do that then you cannot trust him to go over to his friend's place, to be out of your supervision after school, etc.
As someone else pointed out - human biological maturity is achieved at 13 - they failed to point out that neurological maturity is somewhere between there and about 22. I know plenty of people my age who I wouldn't trust with a decision worth are damn - including people who have graudated with 4-year-degrees. I also know some people the age of your son that I would trust at the console of a nuclear missile silo with superuser access.
A good parent should be able to trust their 16 year old to follow their guidance, even with "the door closed" (literally and figuratively) if that parent's teachings are reasonable. (However if the parents teachings are not reasonable, I think many 16 year olds are mature enough to know better and will defy their parents - but I also know many 16 year olds who are mature enough to know their parents are wrong: but not mature enough to do the right thing in the guidance vacuum)
Irrelevant. "Falling in Love" isn't a decision, and it is actually the realm of emotion - not to realm of decision making and logic.
that's me, being forced by the state, to pay for the mistakes of others. which we can all agree that is wrong.
try looking elsewhere in the thread. Furthermore implying that a changed perspective means your opinion changes 100% of the time is also a fallacy. I find it highly unlikely that any additional perspective that I will gain from entering the breeding community will significantly change my opinions on the matter because my opinions are based on a great ammount of observation - and I'm not one given to letting my emotions rule my decisions.
there you go tossing around personal insults again. I would say that you're the one not mature enough for slashdot. My karma happens to be excellent, and if some moderators want to get chewed up by the metamoderates by marking my posts as flamebait then they can be my guest. Apparently the honest opinion of someone CAN be flamebait as well - because I sure have started a flamewar with my only semi-serious comment about the fact that "keep the door open tommy" seems a little bit puritanical and helicopter-parenting (hovering) to me.
Yes i'm 22 fricken years old, but I also have been dating the same woman for 4 years, am getting married to her in 3 months. I am an uncle, I have several of male coworkers as examples of fairly good parents, I have observed the mistakes and successes of my parents with my brother and myself. I have my own expirience when I was 16, I have the mistakes and succeses of those around me to learn from.
Knowledge and wisdom doesn't require first hand expirience - the only thing I haven't yet expirience is the emotional part of it, and I am not given to letting my emotions have any role in my decision making what-so-ever, except where it has a valid part. Determining if I can trust any offspring I have in the future is completely a logical decision, not an emotional one, so emotion will not have a voice in the decision.
I would once again remind you, you're the one that turned it into a personal insult match.
no there really isn't - all the insurance companies are ageist bigots who charge less for people twice my age with recent at-fault accidents than they charge people my age who have perfect, spotless, driving records - or if there is one I've certainly never heard of them
actually you're wrong - infact in many states the law even agrees with me - the person not going with the flow of traffic is the one created the hazard. I have known people to get out of traffic tickets because of the fact that they were going with the flow of traffic - especially when the flow of traffic is traveling at the engineering study rating of the road and the road's speed limit is posted under what the engineering studies rated it for.
and this is the most telling of all - you cannot actually handle debating with someone so instead you start demeaning them based upon their age.
That's very mature of you. I hope you taught that to your son, arrogance and ageism will really help him protect himself from reality in later life.
ever heard of implication?
and contrary to the arrogant assertions ot the practicioners that doesn't automatically make the theoreticians incorrect - infact in almost every field I know the theoreticians are the smarter ones who are right more often, the practicioners merely attempt to implement the ideas of the theoriticians.
no I didn't fail to account for them, I just expect people to be able to make rational decisions despite their emotions - all my friends are capable of doing so, and my children will be taught to be capable of doing so.
argument from morality get us no-where - especially since much of america runs on authoritarian morality with no logic behind it and my "moral system" is 100% based upon logic and human rights
apparently you're unfamiliar with the fields of psychology and sociology.
yup, and those of us under 25 with better driving records than you pay more because of that kind of blanket statement thinking, and quite frankly that should be illegal - if the state is going to require me to have insurance on my vehicle (for good reason) then they should require that my driving record is treated fairly.
bullocks, perhaps you should try reading and processing the information in my post. However your Inpenetrable Shield of Arrogance apparently is preventing that.
I'm not disagreeing with you about it being able to change persepctive, I'm disagreeing with your implication that one's opinion is not valid simply because they haven't expirience something.
I haven't expirienced infection with AIDS - does that mean my opinion that AIDS is bad is invalid?
I haven't expirienced incarceration for committing a crime - does that mean my opinion that committing a crime is a bad thing?
then don't act arrogant
such as enrolling your child in a program run by the Bigot Scouts of America, I hope he didn't have any anti-religious-minority (anti-non-religious) and anti-homosexual attitudes from them.
having those irrational urges doesn't mean they're justified in acting on them. As I told someone else - it's arrogance to say that someone cannot have a valid opinion without being a parent - see my other post.
being that I don't have a daughter....
actually mr AC - where 22 year old full time employed software developers who will be married in 3 months give parenting advice.
nice try though
How about trying to actually refute my point by point?
Your statement is presumptious and arrogant. You are assuming that one cannot have knowledge without 1st hand expirience which is patently false. Maybe I'm just more observant than you but I can learn from the mistakes of those around me so that I never make those mistakes myself, and I can read the research of the best child behavioralists and developmental psychologists on the planet.
All your posts has done is to further perpetuate the arrogance of "I'm a parent and therefore I'm automatically right"
any daughter I have wouldn't sleep with the spawn of scumbags :D j/k
you've never heard of a condom have you?
and it's arrogance to assume that someone who hasn't yet doesn't know anything.
yes it is, and the message it sends is prudish, and instills a sense of distrust
I completely disagree with this - because it's a blanket statement. Some people are mature enough for intimiate relationships by the age of 16 - in that case protected (IE with a condom) sex isn't a problem.
if they can smuggle alcohol into the room past you then you're inattentive, and if you have to worry about them doing so then you have serious issues with your child - you failed to create a trusting relationship with your child and effectively communicate why underage drinking is bad
if you cannot smell tobacco or cannabis smoke through a closed bedroom door then you have a poor sense of smell, and if your child is smoking either you have yet again failed to effectively communicate why those are bad - my find both absolutely disgusting and instead of simply "blah blah blah don't do that" to my children I will prevent them ever being interested in it by promoting them being athletes and instilling in them the same attitude of "that is disgusting" (and I grew up with my father smoking in the house.. he finally quit last week after 39 years!)
atleast you're more realistic and much more mature than some parents, kudos to you for that.
i thought you said you taught him about condoms?
that you trust them to be safe if they do choose to do so. all your previous good work is destroyed if you don't give them trust.
Like i said before - if you REALLY have to worry about your child having sex with their SO right under your nose in their bedroom upstairs, simply because you told them to close the door, then you have trust issues
if they're upstairs and you're downstairs do you REALLY think that merely having the door open is going to stop things? have you ever heard of a quickie? seriously.
I was never given a car, but I had free usage of my parents cars. I've never gotten into an at-fault accident (I have had other morons hit me), I've had one speeding ticket my entire life (5 over... I was farking going downhill! anal cop!), etc.
PS: if all of traffic is going 75 in a 70 zone, except you who is going 70 - it is you who is, strictly speaking, the traffic hazard
apparently you've never heard of condoms.. and if you seriously think your 16-year-old and their bf/gf are going to have sex with their parents in the house then there is absolutely nothing that is going to stop them from having sex, just change the time of it.
I didn't have sex the first time until I was 17... my parents never had to do that "zomg keep your door open" shit
that entire "keep your door open" blah blah blah
stupid.. seriously... grow up - zomg 16-year-old tommy is kissing 16-year-old jane, the world is going to end!
10,000 Simoleons (as in sim city) say it's a viral
economics pressure is force
the only type of credibility we have under bush is "we blow stuff up guud" (and can't put it back togeather again)
that's why government contractors that do this kinda shit (fail to deliver product) should be required to return all the money to the government, and if they don't they can rot in jail and the government will SEIZE their assets
to make penetration into the Joe SixPack market less difficult
(Caveat: I'm a linux fanatic - I use it every day at work, our sever cluster runs a slightly customized Fedora Core 4)
right now the single biggest thing in which windows kicks linux's ass is ease of software installation/uninstallation
it's also it's great Achilles Heel