[flagged]
You are assuming that the kids somehow magically know what would make them happy.
> One day, your kids are going to tell you that you are wrong. Totally wrong. Wrong about morality and ethics. Wrong wrong. And you are going to have to believe them, or you will lose access to a part of their life forever.
How do you know that? I for one feel that my parents gave me way too much access to tech while I was too young to handle it. Also, I wouldn't cut my parents off for disagreeing with me about morality or ethics, I would expect the same treatment from my kids when they are grown-ups.
> Raising a kid is hard, but being a kid is harder.
I did both, and in my experience raising a kid is much harder than being one.
You must mean something different than what I mean: What about someone who was molested by their parents? Should they keep contact with them? You think those people who would rape a kid should have friends and a social group that accepts them for who they are? Is there something here you think is okay?
Listen, I would judge you if I found out you defended your parents diddling some kids, and if you think your kids wouldn't judge you for it I think you really must have messed them up bad.
I really hope you mean something else.
> You are assuming that the kids somehow magically know what would make them happy.
Nothing magical about knowing if you're unhappy or not. Everyone knows when they are unhappy. You sound really unhappy. What can I do that would make you happier?
> One day, your kids are going to tell you that you are wrong. Totally wrong. Wrong about morality and ethics. Wrong wrong. And you are going to have to believe them, or you will lose access to a part of their life forever.
debok are telling me they can have a relationship with someone who is immoral and unethical in their opinion.
Are you saying you think abuse isn't immoral or unethical?
> Are you saying you think abuse isn't immoral or unethical?
Do you think that everything that isn't moral or unethical is abuse?
A moments thought should reveal that it is possible to have a relationship with someone who is immoral and unethical while not having a relationship with anyone who is an abuser.
I do that all the time. In some cases, like abuse, I consider those people to be my enemies. I consider it moral and ethical to love your enemies. So I have relationships with moral and unethical people without stamping my approval on their actions.
I also think you should consider the context a little bit: I'm trying to tell you that if you're not on your kids' side then they're going to keep some things from you (NB emphasis: "you will lose access to a part of their life forever"), not that they're going to keep everything from you, or "cut you off completely". Did you perhaps miss that and read what I wrote a little too narrowly?
P -> Q != Q -> PThen stop changing the subject. We are taking about this distressing statement:
> Also, I wouldn't cut my parents off for disagreeing with me about morality or ethics, I would expect the same treatment from my kids when they are grown-ups.
which certainly sounds like there isn’t a moral or ethical position their parent could have including abuse.
I don’t think anyone thinks the only unethical thing in the world is abuse, and I cannot imagine what kind of a person you would have to be to think that I would mean that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36210978 Is the post where you appear to have conflated immoral/unethical with abuse and it spiraled from there as people tried to explain that to you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36210181 is where debok says they are okay with all immoral and unethical behaviour in their family members, and that includes abuse since we both agree that abuse is (one of many things that is) immoral or unethical.
Now you bring up this idea https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36214514 that I must mean that "that abuse is the only (or even primary) thing that a kid could conceivably complain is immoral or unethical" but that's definitely not what I'm talking about; I'm saying a kid could complain about abuse, and debok says they would still maintain a relationship with that abuser because they are their parents, and that is what I think is wrong and that what you replied to. Maybe you didn't know before but now you do, and as you persist, I think it is a kindness to say you're only trying to change the subject, instead of what I really think.
I’m not so sure about this. I’m not certain what did make me happy or unhappy. I have some theories and sometimes are really confident, but it’s hard to tell a year later out of all the things done which positively contributed and which didn’t.
Also, I don’t think the goal of parenting is happiness. Not for the parents or kids. Life is more than just being happy and I think it’s reductionist to focus on that as the paramount outcome. Especially to kids where there’s lots of stuff happening that may not pay off until years later- studying, being creative, training, learning, etc. Maybe positive decisions are not going to yield happiness for a long time.
And as a parent, there’s so much sacrifice that we make for kids that don’t involve any happiness for the parent but give more probability of success for our children.
We must remember that kids are very inexperienced in life, sometimes it is necessary to state this obvious fact. Parents have to make decisions for our kids based on how much life-experience they have. I don't let my 3 year old decide what to have for dinner, because it would cause him to be sick very quickly. We can bring this full circle to the OP: We don't let our kids have their own smartphones before they reach their teens, and I think that is wise.
> They will learn that "slowing down the rate of change" is a dog whistle for denying the rights of a human being because their parents told them they were a girl.
does make me ask ... What on earth are you talking about?
There’s way more kind loving parents working to help their children flourish than denying their human being rights. And stopping the loving ones to also stop the jerks seems like a net negative impact change.