There are no royalties for public performance in the USA. No wonder performers are annoyed with streaming services.
And yet, we have no shortage of recorded music. I'd say it is safe to conclude that both the UK and the US have ample incentives for artists to create.
Not until the kid starts working (age 16; 18; whatever) do they need to apply for an SSN.
PLEASE don't fight this... the last thing I need is another government-issued ID number for my whole family. Let the IRS re-use the number given by the SSA. I already have a passport number, a drivers license number, and a social security number for every member of the family.
Re-read the thread. I say "my kids have no privacy". I also mention that 18 is too young to "cut the cord".
You immediately jumped on me and called me an asshole. I shouldn't have replied to this flame-bait, but I did.
Anyway to address your points, at no point did I: 1) mention "100% controlled", let alone advocate it; 2) say that I have some right to "control" them.
Unless finding out about a lie and taking away the car keys counts as "control", in which case then yes, I have the right to revoke privileges. Fortunately, my kids are young enough that TV is still an effective reward.
Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues.
LOL, we're in two threads now, but I couldn't help but reply to this...
MY notion??? I never said that - you are stuffing words in my mouth. Reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation sounds EXHAUSTING. Even if I thought it was a good idea, it's not even feasible.
How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.
Feel free to cut-and-paste a quote, because I keep reading my posts and can't find what you claim I said. I mentioned privacy, and only privacy. I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.
I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.
Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming. Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately. This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.
All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains.
You either read that into my posts or have me confused with another poster. Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.
Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.
Changing what argument? What abusive behavior? You are making me into some kind of a maniac, when all I've advocated is watching your kids!
Even a young adult will make poor decisions based on a lack of experience, and a teenager is going to be even worse. I'm not backing away from that. How is that inconsistent with kids getting more responsible with age?
you've just moved the goal posts, to suit your argument.
No, I pointed out that you are more interested in calling me names and berating me than having any kind of a discussion about parenting. This is not how I want my kids to turn out.
I then pointed out that kids develop at different rates, and what is right for a particular kid is going to depend on that kid. I'm not sure how that moves the goalposts.
Woah, hey, no. The darwinism angle is YOUR thing - not mine. I was just pointing out a potential evolutionary advantage.
Most people wouldn't sign up for the army if they thought they were going to die. And frankly, they wouldn't be silly for coming to this conclusion. There are millions serving in the army, and a few thousand die a year with a war going on.
I get into my car every day and drive despite it being the highest probability way for me to die.
I can't even recall any time that I encountered these predators that you speak of.
I'm guessing you are male? Talk to some girls... creepy, creepy bastards abound. Wanna be a model? Come to my studio! A good friend of mine was actually sucked in to this (pre-internet).
I was taught NOT to place myself in situations that could or would be harmful to my mental or physical health, and I avoided them.
I'm all for education, but the simple fact is that it is not possible to transfer my years of experience into the head of a teenager. I can teach them some basic street smarts, but I still need to use my extra experience to protect them.
And that's ignoring the sense of invincibility and raging hormones:) I did dumb, dumb shit well into my 20s. And I was considered to be somewhat of a wet blanket by my peers - there were far, far dumber things happening all around me.
I was trying to be funny, since the phrase is absurd on the face of it.
But just like a Russian arms treaty, I'm perfectly up-front about the monitoring. Sure, my kids aren't getting the privacy that makes the Slashdot crowd happy - but they aren't getting "spied" on any more than the nuclear treaty monitors are spying.
I agree with you, and am not advocating a step-function.
However, there is some merit to "my house, my rules". You also have an ignore-at-your-own-peril legal responsibility to know what your kids are up to. A lot of parents err on the side of trusting too much.
I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions.
You need to show me where I said anything that seems to indicate otherwise. That is indeed the ideal situation.
Life is not ideal, however, and I reserve the right to watch everything my kids do later than that if necessary. Blind trust is a nice romantic notion, but doesn't always work well when teenage invincibility, inexperience, and hormones are involved.
Then you clearly do not trust that you did a good job and instead of trying to fix your failures as a parent, you become even more of a failure by punishing them for your shortcomings.
First of all, even great parents can produce a rotten kid. Second, this is not about "punishing them". This is about changing a bad direction. If my kid is doing hard drugs, I need to accept that and get them help. If my kid is lying to me about their sexual activity, I need to change direction and make certain that they are at least being safe. If my kid is being preyed upon by someone, I need to help them - this isn't about punishment. Even very smart and good kids get sucked into things that quickly make them feel in over their heads and afraid to get help. You cannot teach someone EVERYTHING by 16 - there is nothing wrong with watching a teenager.
Is that really how you want your relationship with your kids to be?
No, it is not. But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.
People like you should NOT be allowed to have children.
What are your credentials to make a statement like that? If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?
And 18 is still too young? Do birds keep their babies in their nest, or do they push them out to teach them to fly?
For some kids, yes, 18 is too young. My wife was mature enough at 17 to leave home (and she did, but to a fairly secure college environment). To use your ridiculous baby-bird analogy, sometimes the baby bird can't fly and gets eaten by a crow. Humans aren't bound to nature like birds are, and we don't really like losing as many kids as birds do.
Lead by example. Teach them what is correct by doing the correct things yourself.
Agreed.
Explain to them the dangers of stuff online, educate them.
Agreed.
Show them respect.
They, like all other people, have to earn that - but, agreed.
If they can't grasp it after that, then beat the little brats and keep them inside till their 18, which is i'm sure your game plan.
No, you completely misconstrue my argument. I'm saying that a child has no innate right to privacy. They have to earn trust, and until they do, you have a right (and actually a responsibility) to watch them very carefully. This is not about sheltering them, this is about letting them out and then checking to make sure they are doing what you hope they are doing.
She just wanted to protect me from the evils of the world. She forced her way of living onto me.
First of all, I'm not a step-parent, so the whole dynamic is different. Second, I'm not trying to "protect them from the evils of the world" - I'm trying to prepare them for the evils of the world. I reserve the right to "violate" their privacy in order to see how I'm doing.
I have no intention of parenting in the way you describe your step-mother. Maybe she violated your privacy and so you are projecting all of her other behavior on to me as well?
Apparently your parents didn't teach you much about having a productive argument - you call me an idiot and actually type in all caps just to emphasize that you intend to be shouting at and berating me, all while using profanity. How can I take anything you have to say about parenting seriously?
I'm not implying that parental responsibility ends at a certain age, but you'd be a fool not to consider the law. Certainly your legal rights all go away at 18, so your kid had better be ready for the "real world" by then. If your kid is ready by 16 or 17, great! If 19, not so great. It's going to depend on your kid.
Honestly, it's not the porn that I fear. It's linking up with unsavory characters. Porn can be explained easily as Hollywood theatrics, just as any violent movie can.
demanding your daughter shower in a clear-as-crystal glass bathroom with clear-as-crystal curtains.
I'm sorry, but your comment is bizarre.
But I suppose if I thought my daughter was going to attempt suicide or do some blow while in the bathroom - yeah, I'd make sure she was being supervised. She is my (and my wife's) responsibility, after all.
RTFA; it talks about stealing passwords, that is not trust
No, that's verify. I'm not giving my kids any illusion that they have privacy. I'm not lying to them. If they use my internet and my computers, they will have some chance of being observed. Hopefully, that keeps 'em honest.
Thank you - I wonder if some of the people commenting even have kids. Or in what wonderland they grew up in where teenagers weren't getting into all sorts of trouble. In my case, I was generally pretty good - but I sure wish my parents had been on me a little harder over my schoolwork.
Slashdot Mirror
There are no royalties for public performance in the USA. No wonder performers are annoyed with streaming services.
And yet, we have no shortage of recorded music. I'd say it is safe to conclude that both the UK and the US have ample incentives for artists to create.
send me exactly where they must know I belong because I can't make that decision for myself.
Congratulations on grasping the purpose of a search engine.
Not until the kid starts working (age 16; 18; whatever) do they need to apply for an SSN.
PLEASE don't fight this... the last thing I need is another government-issued ID number for my whole family. Let the IRS re-use the number given by the SSA. I already have a passport number, a drivers license number, and a social security number for every member of the family.
Really? You don't see the difference between a parent checking up on his child and spying by the government on it's people?
Re-read the thread. I say "my kids have no privacy". I also mention that 18 is too young to "cut the cord".
You immediately jumped on me and called me an asshole. I shouldn't have replied to this flame-bait, but I did.
Anyway to address your points, at no point did I: 1) mention "100% controlled", let alone advocate it; 2) say that I have some right to "control" them.
Unless finding out about a lie and taking away the car keys counts as "control", in which case then yes, I have the right to revoke privileges. Fortunately, my kids are young enough that TV is still an effective reward.
Your notion of reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation is a sign of serious control issues.
LOL, we're in two threads now, but I couldn't help but reply to this...
MY notion??? I never said that - you are stuffing words in my mouth. Reading every email, text, IM, and listening to every conversation sounds EXHAUSTING. Even if I thought it was a good idea, it's not even feasible.
How about in pretty much every post you've made where you talk about how they don't get rights because they're not 18, how YOU get to decide everything they do until that point, etc.
Feel free to cut-and-paste a quote, because I keep reading my posts and can't find what you claim I said. I mentioned privacy, and only privacy. I reserve the right to check up on my child, and contend that is completely reasonable.
abusive and hateful environment.
I don't know what kind of thing happened to you that you are projecting such a person on to me, but I was talking about privacy, and how kids have no inherent right to it.
Every human being will succumb to temptation, no matter how well raised and no matter how morally strong they are. Kids - and in fact many adults - don't always see temptation coming. Part of my job as a parent is to monitor my kids lives for such temptation and make sure they learn to avoid it appropriately. This is not about "trust" or "love" or any other such thing, this is about the basic, widely accepted notion that teenagers make some really bad decisions.
All you talk about is how you should have 100% control over their every thought and action and how they're your property, not human beings with brains.
You either read that into my posts or have me confused with another poster. Please point out where I said anything about "100% control over their every thought and action", or even ALLUDED to kids being your "property" - let alone not human beings or not having brains.
Yea, you can't deny changing your argument to justify your abusive behavior towards your kids.
Changing what argument? What abusive behavior? You are making me into some kind of a maniac, when all I've advocated is watching your kids!
Even a young adult will make poor decisions based on a lack of experience, and a teenager is going to be even worse. I'm not backing away from that. How is that inconsistent with kids getting more responsible with age?
In the ocean, for example
But then Avitar would have been about giant, 3D, blue dolphins instead.
you've just moved the goal posts, to suit your argument.
No, I pointed out that you are more interested in calling me names and berating me than having any kind of a discussion about parenting. This is not how I want my kids to turn out.
I then pointed out that kids develop at different rates, and what is right for a particular kid is going to depend on that kid. I'm not sure how that moves the goalposts.
Woah, hey, no. The darwinism angle is YOUR thing - not mine. I was just pointing out a potential evolutionary advantage.
Most people wouldn't sign up for the army if they thought they were going to die. And frankly, they wouldn't be silly for coming to this conclusion. There are millions serving in the army, and a few thousand die a year with a war going on.
I get into my car every day and drive despite it being the highest probability way for me to die.
I can't even recall any time that I encountered these predators that you speak of.
I'm guessing you are male? Talk to some girls... creepy, creepy bastards abound. Wanna be a model? Come to my studio! A good friend of mine was actually sucked in to this (pre-internet).
I was taught NOT to place myself in situations that could or would be harmful to my mental or physical health, and I avoided them.
I'm all for education, but the simple fact is that it is not possible to transfer my years of experience into the head of a teenager. I can teach them some basic street smarts, but I still need to use my extra experience to protect them.
And that's ignoring the sense of invincibility and raging hormones :) I did dumb, dumb shit well into my 20s. And I was considered to be somewhat of a wet blanket by my peers - there were far, far dumber things happening all around me.
"trust, but verify" is such BS...
I was trying to be funny, since the phrase is absurd on the face of it.
But just like a Russian arms treaty, I'm perfectly up-front about the monitoring. Sure, my kids aren't getting the privacy that makes the Slashdot crowd happy - but they aren't getting "spied" on any more than the nuclear treaty monitors are spying.
I agree with you, and am not advocating a step-function.
However, there is some merit to "my house, my rules". You also have an ignore-at-your-own-peril legal responsibility to know what your kids are up to. A lot of parents err on the side of trusting too much.
if you dont give them any room to grow and learn, can they really grow up?
They have all the room to grow and learn that they earn.
Until then, verify :)
Ahh, yes - we'll be doing the same thing. Only internet access for the kiddies is in the living room.
I said you SLOWLY give them more responsibility over time (starting small when they're kids, more in middle school, even more in early high school) so that by the time they're 16 and have a drivers license, they'll be responsible and capable of making intelligent decisions.
You need to show me where I said anything that seems to indicate otherwise. That is indeed the ideal situation.
Life is not ideal, however, and I reserve the right to watch everything my kids do later than that if necessary. Blind trust is a nice romantic notion, but doesn't always work well when teenage invincibility, inexperience, and hormones are involved.
Then you clearly do not trust that you did a good job and instead of trying to fix your failures as a parent, you become even more of a failure by punishing them for your shortcomings.
First of all, even great parents can produce a rotten kid. Second, this is not about "punishing them". This is about changing a bad direction. If my kid is doing hard drugs, I need to accept that and get them help. If my kid is lying to me about their sexual activity, I need to change direction and make certain that they are at least being safe. If my kid is being preyed upon by someone, I need to help them - this isn't about punishment. Even very smart and good kids get sucked into things that quickly make them feel in over their heads and afraid to get help. You cannot teach someone EVERYTHING by 16 - there is nothing wrong with watching a teenager.
Is that really how you want your relationship with your kids to be?
No, it is not. But I will not let that sentiment drive my parenting. I want healthy, stable adults - it is very hard to do this if you become a teenage parent, become a sexual victim, or find yourself an addict.
People like you should NOT be allowed to have children.
What are your credentials to make a statement like that? If you are driven to such a conclusion, isn't it at least possible that we misunderstand one another?
And 18 is still too young? Do birds keep their babies in their nest, or do they push them out to teach them to fly?
For some kids, yes, 18 is too young. My wife was mature enough at 17 to leave home (and she did, but to a fairly secure college environment). To use your ridiculous baby-bird analogy, sometimes the baby bird can't fly and gets eaten by a crow. Humans aren't bound to nature like birds are, and we don't really like losing as many kids as birds do.
Lead by example. Teach them what is correct by doing the correct things yourself.
Agreed.
Explain to them the dangers of stuff online, educate them.
Agreed.
Show them respect.
They, like all other people, have to earn that - but, agreed.
If they can't grasp it after that, then beat the little brats and keep them inside till their 18, which is i'm sure your game plan.
No, you completely misconstrue my argument. I'm saying that a child has no innate right to privacy. They have to earn trust, and until they do, you have a right (and actually a responsibility) to watch them very carefully. This is not about sheltering them, this is about letting them out and then checking to make sure they are doing what you hope they are doing.
She just wanted to protect me from the evils of the world. She forced her way of living onto me.
First of all, I'm not a step-parent, so the whole dynamic is different. Second, I'm not trying to "protect them from the evils of the world" - I'm trying to prepare them for the evils of the world. I reserve the right to "violate" their privacy in order to see how I'm doing.
I have no intention of parenting in the way you describe your step-mother. Maybe she violated your privacy and so you are projecting all of her other behavior on to me as well?
Apparently your parents didn't teach you much about having a productive argument - you call me an idiot and actually type in all caps just to emphasize that you intend to be shouting at and berating me, all while using profanity. How can I take anything you have to say about parenting seriously?
I'm not implying that parental responsibility ends at a certain age, but you'd be a fool not to consider the law. Certainly your legal rights all go away at 18, so your kid had better be ready for the "real world" by then. If your kid is ready by 16 or 17, great! If 19, not so great. It's going to depend on your kid.
Honestly, it's not the porn that I fear. It's linking up with unsavory characters. Porn can be explained easily as Hollywood theatrics, just as any violent movie can.
demanding your daughter shower in a clear-as-crystal glass bathroom with clear-as-crystal curtains.
I'm sorry, but your comment is bizarre.
But I suppose if I thought my daughter was going to attempt suicide or do some blow while in the bathroom - yeah, I'd make sure she was being supervised. She is my (and my wife's) responsibility, after all.
still dying and not spreading your seed.
Except that preserving their country and way of life may still help their genetic material propagate (i.e. through cousins and siblings).
RTFA; it talks about stealing passwords, that is not trust
No, that's verify. I'm not giving my kids any illusion that they have privacy. I'm not lying to them. If they use my internet and my computers, they will have some chance of being observed. Hopefully, that keeps 'em honest.
Thank you - I wonder if some of the people commenting even have kids. Or in what wonderland they grew up in where teenagers weren't getting into all sorts of trouble. In my case, I was generally pretty good - but I sure wish my parents had been on me a little harder over my schoolwork.