[data_link] Why not blame the parents?

[data_link]

Parenting is actually presented as AN alterntive. Not the only one, not the all or nothing, one or the other false dillema you claim here.

I claim no false delimma, I am merely pointing out that that was the only alternative presented in that post, and that the third option was not brought up until sea skimmer posted. Both facts are true.

By failing here you show that your own reasoning at the start of you post here was flawed and so invalidate the whole lot. And by misreprenting the actual arguement and context you create your own strawman

Since your refusal to actually consider my points is itself based on a misrepresntation of what I just said, I wonder if this isn't a case of pot calling the kettle black.

Is not a strawman nor supported evidence of same. It's you jerrymandering for your own gratification.

Jerrymandering? Hah. And here I thought that maybe you would understand that this is the point that I am supporting, dumbass.

Is not a strawman, it's an analogy. please learn basic english.
"Kids are like dogs." is an analogy.
However your posting it as such IS a strawman as it's misrepresentation of the actual arguement. Do you realise how incredibly stupid it makes you look to start a list of alledged strawman attacks with a Strawman statement then follow it up with a list tht is your own personal Strawman attacks on each point.

The refusal to acknowledge Sea Skimmer's post suggested that maybe people had not understood the point. That you used such an analogy in all seriousness to prove that parents are responsible for their kid's actions IS a strawman.

Yet another strawman from you, this is a continuation of the correct representation of the previous analogy.

The edited portion is in RED.

You won't report me? Tell me Data_link, what would you call posting a Private message on a public forum? A Private Message sent in a system called Private Message.Despite repeated references to the fact it was a private discussion. How about your own trolling? Any look through this thread would have you fucked in five seconds for Logical fallacies, Strawmen, misuse of Concession accepted and refusal to answer points raised.

Since you told me to respond to your challenge in this thread, I posted my response IN THIS THREAD. My trolling? Excuse me, but where have I looked for excuses to flame you? And if you will please check out your own delightful collection of fallacies, and refusal to raise points, I believe you will find that I have been quite patient with you.

Your just making yourself look even more stupid and pathetic than ever with that lame threat. You want to call my bluff here boy? Come on then. Do it. Lets see what happens. BTW Wee MAd Ando and mst of those who were here from th first in this forum kno how I treat trolls, it's remarkbly similar to how i treated you, except I was keeping it civil and restricting it to only this thread. you want the gloves to come off? Ask any of the MODs to look at this thread and if they find a problem with how I posted I'll answer to it, but you have to do the same. Got the balls boy?

Considering that Wong will be back here in the morning, I don't have much choice in the matter.

I suggest you don't reply until Boxing Day, get to that christmas tree, get with you friends and family. Enjoy you Christmas and THINK.

Unfortunately, I'm not as much of a coward as you are.

[The Yosemite Bear]

No one comes out of the womb an asshole, but blaming the parents for everything is an irrational simplification. Parents are an obvious factor in the development of every child, whether present or not. But so are schooling, money, peers, money, environment, and money. Really everyone learns to cope with their environment, the sad fact is that some cope through violence and hate. Parents play the role of first showing children how they cope with situations, and peers next.

Some situations like mental Disorders, Alcoholism, & Diabetic Mood Swings are Genetic. Knowing and controling that can be quite a struggle.

Gee, I had prenatal Exposure to Drugs, I'm from a family with a history of Alcoholism, & I was abused by my first step dad. As per some shrinks that would make me a prime canidate for Psychotic/Violent behaviour.

The fact that I possess enough Empathy to avoid this is most likely because, I did have good parents, and was encouraged to find outlets for my darkside.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I didn't exactly escape the Alcoholism thing either.

Part of how I wound up becomming diabetic.

Funny though I haven't had any in like ten years....

[Darth Wong]

And given that the child has also known the parent for the same amount of time, he will have had that much time to learn to hide his true feelings from his parents and feed them what they want to hear.

Children like you always think they're smarter than they are, especially teenagers. Anyone who's a decent judge of character can tell if someone's an asshole, and while I'm sure you believe you can hide this fact from your parents, you can only do so if they willfully play along.

Wong, if he's hiding something from you, you aren't going to know about it.

Assholes can't hide their stripes. You've demonstrated that quite nicely.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about knowing precisely what actions the kid will take, or when, or where. We are only talking about knowing that a kid is headed in the wrong direction, ie- what kind of person he's turning into.

And even the best people people get into crime too.

Wrong. Only an asshole becomes a criminal. What the fuck makes you think that "even the best people get into crime?"

No shit, and this is why even the best parent will not nessecarily produce a good child. And even the worst parent (and no, that is not the nonexistent parent) will not nessecarily produce a bad child. The x-factor is great enough that a bad child cannot nessecarily be connected to a bad parent.

Not solely connected, no. But your opposite claim (that the parent has no responsibility whatsoever) is moronic.

No, you fucking idiot. I recognize that if my kid grows up to be a bad person, it's probably due in significant part to something I did, or something I should have done. Did you sell your brain to gypsies? Where the fuck did you interpret "I am unprepared for the possibility" from "I must accept the responsibility?", you blithering idiot?

Pot calling the kettle black. Now quit making strawmen and actually read my posts. For your benefit, I'll type slower. N-o-t e-v-e-r-y b-a-d c-h-i-l-d i-s a r-e-s-u-l-t o-f a b-a-d p-a-r-e-n-t.

Not necessarily, but any parent who refuses any responsibility for the way his child turns out should never have become a parent in the first place, because he's obviously got the wrong attitude. Any parent who saw the warning signs and did nothing is a bad parent. Any parent who tries to slough off responsibility for a child he brings into the world is a bad person, period. That is why dumb-fuck parents who try to blame TV, videogames, and everything else for their kid's behaviour should be put under the microscope themselves. Your ridiculous attempt to manufacture strawmen is tiresome and irritating. READ MY FUCKING POSTS, ASSHOLE.

Considering that my third post on this subject explicitly seperated the two, it would seem that you are the one with all the straw.

Really! Let's see; you said "You seem to think that you can kill 50 people and then blame your parents for the way you were raised". I challenge you to find a single post in this thread where I stated as much, asshole.

Now, try to understand what I am saying: the fact that bad parenting is one cause of bad character does not mean it is the ONLY cause.

Find me one post in this thread where I said it was, asshole.

Having the sniffles does NOT always mean that you have a cold, and a child with bad character does NOT, in the absence of other evidence, prove bad parenting.

If the parents took every conceivable step to help the child, no. If the parents were negligent, ignored warning signs (which is what Rob was talking about), and refused to take responsibility for the child they brought into the world, then yes. They're bad fucking parents. If you are too stupid to read plain English, that's your problem, not mine.

Read my lips: Rob is saying that a parent must take corrective action upon identifying warning signs, otherwise he's a bad parent. I am saying that parents who try to slough off responsibility are bad parents. You have somehow distorted both positions into "the parent is 100% responsible for all actions of the child, the child is blameless". Obviously, you are either too stupid to read, too drugged to think, or too dishonest to admit your own mistake.

Mr. Wong, please do your kids a favor and put them up for adoption, as you are obviously unfit to parent them.

Oh yes, I always take the parenting advice of arrogant, ignorant children who can't even read plain English sooooo seriously.

Then castrate yourself to ensure that no other such accidents occurr in the future.

Accidents like you? If I thought I was capable of raising someone as stupid and arrogant as you have been in this thread, I would go for the vasectomy tomorrow.

Let's look at your strawman distortions, shall we?

You still insist that it is the parent, and not the child, that shares PRIMARY responsibility.

Another strawman from our latest asshole. Find one quote where either Rob or myself said PRIMARY responsibility lays anywhere but the perpetrator of any crime.

you and everybody else is focusing on the parent without even looking at SS's suggestion that maybe you should place the blame on the child

Another strawman from our latest asshole. Find one quote where either Rob or myself said that no blame should be placed on the child for his own actions.

"Parents whose kids fuck up are NOT nessecarily liable for bad parenting"

How can a parent not be responsible for bad parenting? This is the most idiotic statement I've read in a long time. And you actually believe you are qualified to judge who is a good parent
And in response to "If a parent does not know his kid is getting into bad shit, he is a negligent parent." you said:

Congratulations, Wong, you have just created a criterion for being a parent that disqualifies every single person on Earth.

Amazing; there is not a single parent on Earth who can tell that his kid is "getting into bad shit?" What a genius you must think you are ...

And finally, in response to "You seem to think that a parent can bring a person into this world, raise that person, and then wave off any and all responsibility for the way that person turns out," you said:

Yes.

And you said:

You seem to think that you can kill 50 people and then blame your parents for the way you were raised.

Yet another strawman,asshole. So let's see. In your own words, you believe that:

• A parent is not responsible for bad parenting.
• A parent can wave off any and all responsibility for the way his child turns out.
• Anyone who disagrees with #2 must think that it's OK to "kill 50 people and then blame your parents".
• A person's character has nothing to do with the likelihood of him committing crimes, or as you put it, "even the best people can get into crime".

You can accuse me of strawmen all day, and you can deny your own strawman all day, but the proof is in the pudding, and you have demonstrated such an appalling ability to debate in a rational fashion, make reasonable statements (you think parents aren't responsible for parenting, and criminals aren't necessarily bad people), or avoid strawmen that I seriously question your sentience.

[Wicked Pilot]

Well, this thread descended into flames. I for one sure didn't see that one coming.



Just a quick question, how many who've posted in this thread are actual parents?

[data_link]

You're right Wong, I am an asshole. I'll no longer pollute this board with my stupidity. Please feel free to delete my account and all records of my existence.

[Darth Wong]

If you can't take the heat, get out of Nagasaki, asshole.

Every time someone says "if you're going to blame someone for the way a criminal turned out, look at the parents", you say "ah, so you think the criminal shouldn't be blamed for his own actions, eh?" If you're too much of a prick to admit you were wrong for insisting on this pathetic strawman distortion, I'm not going to shed any tears over your departure.

Get the fuck out and take your whiny attitude with you.

[Colonel Olrik]

Was he really banned?

I managed to miss this entire thread until now. Wow.

This is what happens when someone can't fucking concede a point and give up. But I always thought data_link rational and clever in the past, although given to emotional outbursts. From my part, I'd like to see him apologizing and returning. But I won't miss him.

[Darth Wong]

Was he really banned?

No, I just deactivated his account (actually, he asked me to delete it outright, but I prefer simple deactivation).

I managed to miss this entire thread until now. Wow.

This is what happens when someone can't fucking concede a point and give up. But I always thought data_link rational and clever in the past, although given to emotional outbursts. From my part, I'd like to see him apologizing and returning. But I won't miss him.

He seems rational most of the time, but he's given to truly strange flights of fancy at times. He actually defended patkelly for a while. But this level of petulance was unexpected; something about the topic of this thread must have hit a nerve.

[Joe Momma]

Good Lord, data_link's posts are some of the worst examples of "black and white" fallacies I've ever seen.

Take his "point" about the juvenile courts for example. He assumed that lesser punishment was equal to holding juveniles blameless, missing the obvious point that they're still being held somewhat responsible or they wouldn't be undergoing a trial in the first place. Instead of absolving children of blame, the concept of a juvenile court recognizes that children often have diminished responsibility, i.e. they haven't necessarily acquired the knowledge or experience yet to fully understand the consequences of their actions, which is critical to being a responsible person -- in other words, an adult.

Unlike data_link, the laws recognize that responsibility among young people is a sliding scale. The very young are seldom held accountable because they really haven't learned how to think responsibly yet. The older they get, the more responsible they are held (in theory, anyway). And consequently, parents are held more responsible for their child's actions when the child is very young and less so as said child gets closer to adulthood.

Ditto with involved parenting. No, involved parenting isn't a total panacea, but NO ONE HERE PRESENTED IT AS SUCH. But it is the responsibility of parents to know what their child is doing and to present a good example. If you're doing those things, hopefully your child will remember your influence even when you're not present. No, it will not be 100% effective, but almost nothing is in the real world; it will most likely help, though, and that's what counts. data_link seems incapable of understanding that everyone was suggesting good parenting was a positive influence, not the sole determining factor.

My favorite quote along those lines came from Detective Sikes on Alien Nation (the TV show): "All you can do is give your kids love and attention and hope they don't turn into axe murderers." It's admittedly a bit simplistic, but I think it makes a good bottom line.

Maybe I'm wasting my breath here since data_link has left the building, but what he was saying truly concerned me. I think there is a current trend in the United States to absolve parents of all responsibility.

Part of that absolution is an attitude that enforcing your will on your children is not respecting their independence and autonomy. Jesus, I remember that commercial for the size 6 diapers where it was implied that a good parent lets their kid decide when he wants to be potty-trained. Goddammit, the biggest point of being a parent (IMO) is that as the adult (the person who has learned to be responsible) you have the duty of making responsible decisions for your child while trying to teach them to do so for themselves when they are older.

If kids could make responsible decisions for themselves, they wouldn't need parents in the first fucking place. From what I've seen, this point can't be emphasized enough. I've seen more than a few "bad" kids turned around by someone setting consistent boundaries for them so they can learn what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. I suspect that setting consistent boundaries (and setting consistent examples through your behavior) is even more important than providing affection (though kids should get plenty of that, too, and not just the "hugs and kisses" type, but also the investment of serious amounts of quality time with them, as much as I hate that over-used phrase).

Sadly, I suspect that a lot of this is subconsciously self-serving. In essence, it seems like some parents want to think their child can take care of his- or herself so they don't have to.

And so everyone knows where I'm coming from, I'm not a parent. At least, not yet. But I did participate quite a bit in the raising of my niece (living in the same house as her parents and often taking care of her during her earlier years, when we all had very divergent work schedules). I've also spent a lot spent a lot of time observing children and parents on a personal level among my friends and family and at a professional level during many of my jobs (quite a few of which involved one form or another of social work).

So I have a little bit of personal experience and a lot of observation. I also realize that observation rates lower than usual versus experience in something as personal and involved as parenting. I don't know if I'm "ready" to be a parent, but I'm not sure if anyone ever is (even if they already are parents of other children -- it's amazing how different siblings can be). I do hope that I am ready to be as responsible as I can be if I do father a child, to remain open to the advice and criticism of others who've gone through the same things and are now offering me the benefit of their experience, and to keep learning and growing even as my child does.

Along those same lines, I'd be seriously worried if my child acted like data_link. This is not a flame, but an honest statement of concern. He's got an all-or-nothing way of viewing the world -- "If parenting doesn't do EVERYTHING, then it cannot do ANYTHING", "If you say children are not always 100% responsible for their acts, then you are saying they are not responsible at all", "If I cannot secure total agreement, then the discussion is futile and I am leaving" -- and that's going to cause him a lot of grief, because very little (if anything) works that way in the adult world.

-- Joe Momma

[Rob Wilson]

Was he really banned?

I managed to miss this entire thread until now. Wow.

This is what happens when someone can't fucking concede a point and give up. But I always thought data_link rational and clever in the past, although given to emotional outbursts. From my part, I'd like to see him apologizing and returning. But I won't miss him.

I'll say my ha'penny worth. I think I may have pushed too hard. I had hoped to have him learn the lesson that most teenagers have to learn; 'They don't know everything and they are not immortal/invunerable'. I'd hoped to do it in a relatively unknown thread and point out his bad debate technique so he could improve and learn. Shame, because if the way I had had to learn that lesson was being held up to momentary ridicule on a web board, I'd have jumped at the chance for such a painless alternative.

I think I mishandled it, I already showed him that any adult with knowledge of teenagers could effectively control them (though I doubt he cottoned on even at the end), unfortunately I misjudged his maturity and he went waaaaay past where I intended. Normally when you have to force them to realise they can be shown to be wrong, you're actually in the room with them and they cannot run away, so MUST face it and learn from it. I forgot that here there was nothing to stop him leaving in a huff.

The ironic thing was, by his definition I was entirely blameless for his over-reaction .

Having seen his debate tactics of 'I know you are, but what am I', 'Nanananana I can't hear you' and 'I know everything so you must be wrong' I'm astonished he got this far without learning anything. He had 1000+ posts on a forum whose website has a list of debating errors to avoid and he knew NOTHING about how to handle a debate.

I think it's sad to run away rather than face up to his mistake. Hopefully in a few years and with a bit of life experience he'll be better able to handle himself and think clearly about an issue before mouthing off and digging himself in deeper.

My guess is that he was at the "I want to be an individual just like all my friends" stage of teenage life. Desperate to be taken seriously therefore unwilling to allow that others have any input to how he acts. Most kids go through it, he just was too headstrong to back down on something that, at this stage, was the lynchpin of his self-view. Between a rock and a hard place (both of his own creation) he decided to run.

Lastly, in one of my PM's I asked him to work out why he had lost the debate before he ever hit send on his first post in the thread. The answer is that the Parents are Legal Guardians of their children. As such they are viewed under law as responsible to a reasonable degree for the social behavior of their children. His position of Parents being 0% responsible never had a leg to stand on.

[Rob Wilson]

I suggest you don't reply until Boxing Day, get to that christmas tree, get with you friends and family. Enjoy you Christmas and THINK.

Unfortunately, I'm not as much of a coward as you are.

This is the only bit of his silly post I'll reply to as he has left and anything else would be ridicule for it's own sake.

Now, forget that he left the board (maybe he hadn't intended to when he posted this), read the above two quoted lines (my comment and his reply) which were the last two in his post. Please can anyone tell me what the hell he was talking about? Did he think it was cowardly to ask him to take some time and think before continuing?? I'm at a loss as to what he thought he would accomplish with those lines.

[Ghost Rider]

Perhaps the same reasoning that he's applied throughout the debate.

He is so determined in that he must defeat you the very fact that you dare mention rest and think to him(I have met people like this and I know many people have and honestly it's funnier to goad them because they will do exactly what data_link just did...screw themselves over) obviously meant that you are trying to give yourself breathing room.

Other than that who knows.

[Rob Wilson]

Perhaps the same reasoning that he's applied throughout the debate.

He is so determined in that he must defeat you the very fact that you dare mention rest and think to him(I have met people like this and I know many people have and honestly it's funnier to goad them because they will do exactly what data_link just did...screw themselves over) obviously meant that you are trying to give yourself breathing room.

But it was Christmas! Did he think I was going to post through that rather spend time with my friends and family? It just baffled the hell out of me, as non sequitors go his was world class.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I've read this thread over, and I'm wondering... Just what did data_link put in his eggnog?

[Ghost Rider]

Absinthe?

As for Rob...given how he applied to extreme nature...he never even considered that part of the day being Christmas and that you were wishing for him to take time off and rest

[Rob Wilson]

Absinthe?

Cut with LSD?

As for Rob...given how he applied to extreme nature...he never even considered that part of the day being Christmas and that you were wishing for him to take time off and rest

Well I did tell him to spend time with his family and friends, plus I PMed him as well. Oh well "The boys not right."

[Setzer]

I feel the Parents should be blamed. It's their job to raise their Children and teach them right from wrong. I myself could have been a Columbine Kid. I keep to myself, I'm frequently teased at school, and I play violent video games. But my Mom has taught me the difference between right and wrong, so I have no desire to start gunning people down.

[Darth Wong]

Parents should blame themselves for the way their kid turns out. There's a big difference between blame and "being thrown in jail for proxy legal responsibility for the kid's actions, thus letting the kid himself off the hook", which is what data_link had shamelessly distorted the argument into, but a parent who does not hold himself responsible for the way his kid turned out obviously went into the enterprise with the wrong mindset.