Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Ehh, authority is a perfectly good reason in the absence of any reason to oppose it. I agree, other reasons are superior if possible, but if you agree that there are cases where there are no other possible solutions then I don't see what your point is, really? The lesson there is "broccoli is good for you", not "listen to authority"; if there is an authority-related message, it's "don't oppose authority for the sake of opposing authority, but go right ahead if you have a reason, as long as you're prepared to discuss it".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Because I said so" is never alright. You cannot teach children to submit to authority for the sake of authority, you need to teach them to accept critical reasoning by always making that your justification for forcing them to do X. They will never understand if you don't start the cycle of questioning by telling them the reasoning behind your actions.

[kaijyuu]

Ehh, authority is a perfectly good reason in the absence of any reason to oppose it. I agree, other reasons are superior if possible, but if you agree that there are cases where there are no other possible solutions then I don't see what your point is, really?

Realize this (that is, my large children's rights post) largely started concerning voting rights and age of consent. I only mentioned parenting to allay fears that I was advocating toddlers to have full independence from their parents. There really isn't a point to be made about parenting, since I'm just clarifying things. The way we have parenting right now is... mostly ok.

[Duke 2.0]

They will never understand if you don't start the cycle of questioning by telling them the reasoning behind your actions.

We do, I just don't know how it happened. Not from school, not from home, perhaps from church eventually.

[Frumple]

Wait, what? How does that apply to children that don't grow up religious?

[kaijyuu]

Heh, my personal home life as a teenager got a LOT better when my parents finally abandoned the "because I said so" argument and started explaining their reasoning. Partly because I actually understood why some rules existed where I didn't before, and partially because I was able to explain to them why some of their rules were dumb and didn't need to exist. Win-win.

[Bauglir]

"Because I said so" is never alright. You cannot teach children to submit to authority for the sake of authority, you need to teach them to accept critical reasoning by always making that your justification for forcing them to do X. They will never understand if you don't start the cycle of questioning by telling them the reasoning behind your actions.

Obviously. So what do you do once you've explained the reasoning, and are still dealing with a kid whose reasoning is that cookies taste better than broccoli, so cookies for dinner? You say the broccoli is healthier, explain the vitamins and minerals, explain the biochemistry if you have to, the physics if you have to, the mathematics if you have to. Doesn't matter, it doesn't change what they taste like, and that is what the kid cares about. And this is an exceptionally rational child in this example! You certainly can't let the kid eat cookies for every meal; sure, they'll recognize that they feel awful, but that still doesn't change that cookies taste better, and maybe something else is making them feel bad. There's no proof that it's the cookies; they don't feel any worse after eating them. Why would it be the delicious thing that hurts?

I completely agree that "I said so" is insufficient justification, but I think you're naive if you think that it's never necessary.

Though, I'd argue that there are tangible benefits to being able to recognize that you should follow authoritative decisions in positions where you aren't equipped to competently argue against the authority. This is why, for instance, I would consider it unreasonable for me to pick a fight with Stephen Hawking about the physics of black holes, or with the IRS about what my tax bracket is. If I invested enough time into researching modern physics, or the tax code and economics associated therewith, then sure.

[Duke 2.0]

Wait, what? How does that apply to children that don't grow up religious?

As stated by the second sentence, it doesn't. It's just a personal story used to show that the argument using the term "Never" doesn't work.

 I see the point of having reasoning for a teenager, but not for a child. There is a certain point where they stop attempting to do stuff that will harm them 90% of the time and gain some preservation instinct. Teenagers still do a lot of stupid shit, but a lot of it can be handled by being open enough with them for talks to happen openly and freely. And the usual issue of good-meaning parents that are not terribly good at debate who have children who always question everything forever, with no real adequate answers for them. Parents should try to wean their kids off of following an authority because they are the authority, but they still need to maintain it for when they try to go out driving with a bunch of friends at night in a college neighborhood that is going through partying no matter what the teenager reasons with.

[Criptfeind]

Condescending dismissal #1. Oh well. Was bound to happen eventually.


As I noted in the part you didn't quote, it's far from realistically doable, at least in today's world. What, should we have courts for settling minor domestic disputes? Ludicrously impractical.

You dismissed your own argument and indeed do so in this post as well, what am I suppose to think you are doing if not joking when you make (poor) points with one sentence and refute them with the next? That was a not a Condescending dismissal, that was me literally saying "Oh I get it, you are joking."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Obviously. So what do you do once you've explained the reasoning, and are still dealing with a kid whose reasoning is that cookies taste better than broccoli, so cookies for dinner? You say the broccoli is healthier, explain the vitamins and minerals, explain the biochemistry if you have to, the physics if you have to, the mathematics if you have to. Doesn't matter, it doesn't change what they taste like, and that is what the kid cares about. And this is an exceptionally rational child in this example! You certainly can't let the kid eat cookies for every meal; sure, they'll recognize that they feel awful, but that still doesn't change that cookies taste better, and maybe something else is making them feel bad. There's no proof that it's the cookies; they don't feel any worse after eating them. Why would it be the delicious thing that hurts?

I completely agree that "I said so" is insufficient justification, but I think you're naive if you think that it's never necessary.

Explaining the justification is how one tells the child they aren't getting cookies and must eat broccoli (which, by the way, is fucking delicious, but I digress). Once you bring out the "I said so", all of that goes out the window and the child is taught to learn the Argument from Authority to be legitimate. Explain every time, and then enforce that through your explanation. The behavior one exhibits towards a child is always influencing the type of person they will become, from the day they are born. The sooner they are taught to accept critical thinking, the better.

You seem to be under the strange impression that a parent has no power unless they teach their children to be unquestioning sheep, which is very odd. You can just as easily use power to enforce rational justifications and irrational ones, and enforcing rational things is in fact the only acceptable use of power.

[Criptfeind]

So. What. Hold them down and force feed them? Sounds like a good idea.

[kaijyuu]

Condescending dismissal #1. Oh well. Was bound to happen eventually.


As I noted in the part you didn't quote, it's far from realistically doable, at least in today's world. What, should we have courts for settling minor domestic disputes? Ludicrously impractical.

You dismissed your own argument and indeed do so in this post as well, what am I suppose to think you are doing if not joking when you make (poor) points with one sentence and refute them with the next? That was a not a Condescending dismissal, that was me literally saying "Oh I get it, you are joking."

Fair enough. I accept I'm communicating badly in this way.

I'm not dismissing my arguments, just their immediate practicality. I'm speaking idealistically; "wouldn't it be great if."

But then, what's the point of arguing this if it's not practically doable? Well, any reform is going to have logistical issues in implementing it. It IS practically doable, just not anytime soon. It's a goal to be reached, and the first step toward reaching it is convincing others of the philosophy behind it. Not that you guys can do anything more than I, but debate is fun right

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So. What. Hold them down and force feed them? Sounds like a good idea.

No. Just don't give them the damnedable cookies. Make it clear that the food you've given them is all they are getting, because [insert everything about nutrition here]. It isn't like they'll starve themselves to death, the instinct to eat is much too powerful.

[Bauglir]

No, I'm curious as to what you will actually say or do to convert what you want your child to understand from words to understanding. What does "enforce that through your explanation" mean? If it means, "Explain why broccoli is healthier, and the child has to eat broccoli, and then provide no cookies until broccoli is eaten", then we're really not arguing for anything different except that I'm including this under "Because I said so", and I can explain why, if you'd like.

But I'd appreciate it if you stop assuming things like "unquestioning sheep" as what I believe to be the correct course of action. It isn't, and if you think I've indicated as much then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

"don't oppose authority for the sake of opposing authority, but go right ahead if you have a reason, as long as you're prepared to discuss it".

[Criptfeind]

Idea. Never have children. Might be hard on some of us, specifically the ones who have children already, but according to the pro-lifers soon the slippery slope will provide us with retroactive abortion and we can solve that issue.