How far does a parent's "double standard" go?

[Ghost Rider]

THATS a red herring since the parent probably restricts the kid's time on the net regardless of if the kid surfs at home or at the library.

You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly.

Okay, at the time I don't know if it could be assumed, but let me clarify that he was right in this case; the parent does.

Then that part to restricting elsewhere should be approached, because that is outside the juridiction of the ownership and is a parent/child relation and should be handled in that particular format of "If I go elsewhere why am I restricted?".

That is another case altogether since the first is a matter of who owns what, the second is a matter of whether the child is trustworthy and responsible and how much/little does the parent trust the child. This is a case where hypocrisy is based upon whether or not the child has earned the respect to demonstrate not abuse said internet, or is the parent being oppressive just to simply exert power.

[Darth Servo]

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

[Cos Dashit]

The child is out of line. The child can wait an hour or so for his parent to finish playing their game. They worked all day, they pay the internet bills anyway, they can play poker or whatever for a half hour longer. The child is being, well, childish and also quite disrespectful. The double standard in this case is wholly acceptable.

[Cairber]

...I think this goes in this forum, maybe in morality?...
Here's the situation...
In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge(poker, hearts, etc.). The teenager comes to his parent asking for help, but the parent asks the teenager to wait until later, as he/she is in a game at the moment. Later, after the tournament is over, when the parent is not buisy, and in the private residence, not in public, the teenager respectfully points out to his/her parent that the parent imposes restrictions on the teenager's websurfing time, but does not impose said restrictions on his/her self. He/she also notes that the parent often tells the teenager to lead by example, and yet does not do so in this case. The parent refuses to answer the teenager's points except with "I am your parent," "there is a double standard," "what I say goes," etc. Who (if anyone) is out of line (see poll) and why (answer in your post)?

I bolded three sections.

1) Here the parent is out of line. They are being asked for help and are turning the child away because of a computer game. I don't agree with this. If the tournament cannot be paused or whatever then a better explanation and plan is needed for the child, not just saying "later." Ask if it can wait, get the teen's input, and make a plan.

2) I think it is perfectly fine that the teen is inquiring about web surfing time. I use to go to this moms board a lot and there were moms who were admittedly addicted to the site. Although you do not present information like this, if the situation is that the parents are spending too much time on the computer and the child is feeling...I don't know the right word....left out? not having their needs met? The child could just be feeling it isn't right.

The child might say that "well you don't let me on that long" but that language could just be a cover for the child really feeling other emotions about the computer time- such as being left out or feeling that the family is being hurt by the computer time.

So I would say that the parents shouldn't just brush off the question as whining or wanting more computer time for himself/herself.

3) On leading by example-
This again might be more than the child just pointing out a "do as I say not as I do" situation. I would want to talk to him/her and find out why that bothers him/her.

[Darth Wong]

In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge(poker, hearts, etc.). The teenager comes to his parent asking for help, but the parent asks the teenager to wait until later, as he/she is in a game at the moment.

This is OK as long as the parent really does help with the teen's homework later and actually tries to end his game in a reasonable time. If he reneges on that promise, then he's being a douche. However, parents are people too, and people don't like being interrupted in the middle of something if they can help it.

Later, after the tournament is over, when the parent is not buisy, and in the private residence, not in public, the teenager respectfully points out to his/her parent that the parent imposes restrictions on the teenager's websurfing time, but does not impose said restrictions on his/her self.

Goddamned right. If I'm the father in this situation, I point out that I paid for the fucking computer, I pay for the fucking Internet connection, I pay for the electricity, the house over your head, the fucking hardwood floor you're walking on, the motherfucking water that you use to flush the toilet and brush your teeth, the clothes on your back, and the goddamned food you've been eating in my house for your entire life. So if I want to surf on my computer, I can surf on it for as long as I goddamned well want.

Simply asking for more surfing time is OK, but trying to portray the parent as a hypocrite because he gives himself more surfing time than his son is the ridiculous whiny bullshit of a precocious brat. That's the point where this conversation changes from a request to an accusation.

He/she also notes that the parent often tells the teenager to lead by example, and yet does not do so in this case. The parent refuses to answer the teenager's points except with "I am your parent," "there is a double standard," "what I say goes," etc. Who (if anyone) is out of line (see poll) and why (answer in your post)?

The parent just makes a lousy argument in this case. The point is that the parent owns all of this shit, and has already done his work for the day, and has earned the right to relax. When he was a kid, his father probably limited his recreational time and made him do homework at night too.

[Covenant]

I was asked for more info, and here it is:
The whole idea of "is it the parent's responsibility to get off now to help?" was actually not what I was origionally going for (though I am glad it went this way, it is interesting); I was using the scenario of homework help just to form a catalyst for the situation. What I was getting at at my original post was more along the lines of what Darth Servo was getting at; that the parent restricts web time, yet on a daily basis plays on the card leauge over more hours per day on average then he/she allows for his/her child. However, on the subject of other work, yes the teenager had other work, but he could come back to the current work later and work on other work. I hadn't given much thought to that; it wasn't my origional issue idea.

This is more clear, thank you.

I still think that the double standard isn't really the case, since it's not the same standard. As a few of us have said, the child wants to use his father's internet for more time during the day, and has restricted access. This is partially because the parent has the right to set these rules and partially because the parent has a responsibility to make sure their kid does stuff. If he says you need to go outside and exercise, that's reasonable. If he says you can't stay up all night, that's reasonable. If he says you need to start homework earlier, that's reasonable. And if he says those are all the reasons why you can't be on the internet much, that's also reasonable.

So yeah, really, that's the issue. If the kid can finish his chores and such, do his homework, and get ready for the next day well in excess of bedtime, I think it's fine to let him goof off for the rest--especially if he's in a sport. I would be much more leniant with an active kid than one who just wants to loaf around at home alone on his computer. The kid is a kid, and is dealing with the rules that apply to kids, while the parent is an adult who owns all the shit in the house and is ALSO responsible for setting limits. All they've done is set the child's limits lower than the adult who owns all the shit anyway. And even if the kid bought himself a computer, installed the line, and paid the bills for it... the parent still has the right to say "you need to go to bed/go outside/get a job" or whatever. It sucks, but it's called life. The best way to survive that is to suck it up until you get your own life. Plus, by then, you'll be smart enough to set your own limits better.

[Darth Wong]

The funny thing about this is that I actually do try to set an example for my kids, but there's a difference between "setting an example" voluntarily and being accused of being somehow hypocritical or unethical for not subjecting yourself to the exact same rules as your kid. It's like the difference between being asked to donate to charity and having some asshole scream at you that you're a scumbag for not donating to charity.

[Count Dooku]

The funny thing about this is that I actually do try to set an example for my kids, but there's a difference between "setting an example" voluntarily and being accused of being somehow hypocritical or unethical for not subjecting yourself to the exact same rules as your kid. It's like the difference between being asked to donate to charity and having some asshole scream at you that you're a scumbag for not donating to charity.

Setting good examples for children is the best thing any parent can do for their child, but setting the same rules for both might be a bit dangerous. Children should not feel like they are equals with their parents. Any parent who lets their kid scream at them, and then bends to their kid's will shouldn't be considered a good parent.

[Ghost Rider]

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

Gee, I'm shocked...no, really...you don't say. Under their household? Holy Fuck, what a concept, I'm glad you're here to tell us this, Einstien.

Note in my above bit I mentioned about earned the respect of the parent to allow said parent to trust a child. I guess we should assume from your half assed bit, you were never given this? Or oh wait, you were when proven trustworthy enough to earn said privileges?

[Darth Servo]

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

Gee, I'm shocked...no, really...you don't say. Under their household? Holy Fuck, what a concept, I'm glad you're here to tell us this, Einstien.

Note in my above bit I mentioned about earned the respect of the parent to allow said parent to trust a child. I guess we should assume from your half assed bit, you were never given this? Or oh wait, you were when proven trustworthy enough to earn said privileges?

It shows that I my point about surfing at the library was not "pulling something out of my ass", dumbshit.

[Ghost Rider]

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

Gee, I'm shocked...no, really...you don't say. Under their household? Holy Fuck, what a concept, I'm glad you're here to tell us this, Einstien.

Note in my above bit I mentioned about earned the respect of the parent to allow said parent to trust a child. I guess we should assume from your half assed bit, you were never given this? Or oh wait, you were when proven trustworthy enough to earn said privileges?

It shows that I my point about surfing at the library was not "pulling something out of my ass", dumbshit.

Oh, I get it. Using anecdotal evidence trumps your assumption before getting all the facts.

Next time fucker, wait until everything is revealed. I made a mistake, but you were on pure assumption before anything was shown. It doesn't exactly put you in any sort of higher postion dipshit.

[Darth Servo]

Oh, I get it. Using anecdotal evidence trumps your assumption before getting all the facts.

Yet you admitted that parents setting rules over things that was NOT their own property was hardly anecdotal ("gee I'm shocked" sound familiar?). I'd go get my head checked if I were you because your memory is showing signs of severe failure.

Next time fucker, wait until everything is revealed. I made a mistake, but you were on pure assumption before anything was shown. It doesn't exactly put you in any sort of higher postion dipshit.

Do you see me trying to CLAIM the higher position? No. Thats what YOU'RE trying to do with all your condescending, "no shit sherlock", "gee I'm shocked", and "you're pulling shit out of your ass" crap.

Some parents permit their kids to earn their trust. Some are dictators. but thats really irrelevant.

[Darth Servo]

GR, I would also like to point out that you made just as big an assumption by assuming the rule was limited to the home computer. Did I flame the crap out of you for it? No. I simply pointed there were other ways to look at the situation. Yet YOU come around and try and accuse me of being a condescending asshole for it. Stop throwing stones from a glass house hatfucker.

[Ghost Rider]

Read what I said:

"You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly."

It's the truth. You know around here, you present proof when making a claim that is outside the borders of the premise. You've debated here long enough that saying this is no different then making any other bold claim. I said you got lucky, because that is exactly what happened. If it was worded in my favor, I hit the mark...I didn't, so be it.

You want to scream some more, fine...I can raise my post count. But you getting antsy that how dare I make a comment about it when nothing demonstrated otherwise, be my guest.

You made one presumptious statement and another that was either purposefully or blissfully vague. Not exactly sterling shots across my bow.

[Darth Servo]

"You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly."

I made an assumption without all the facts. You did the same.

You criticize me for it. Why should I not return the favor?

You call my point "anecdotal" even when you KNOW its pretty common practice.

The wording of the OP does NOT support your assumption, especially since I turned out to be right. You're full of shit.

[ArmorPierce]

You're stating that the parent is limiting internet usage regardless of where you are on the interenet.
1. What evidence you got for that? Stating that your parents didn't allow you to play with your toys don't have anything to do with this situation except presenting the possibility that they did
2. Even if they do (unlikely), why does it matter? The kid is living in the parent's house, the parents are paying for his food, clothes, everything. If they see fit that the kid is spending too much time on the internet than that's up to them. They're the ones raising the kid and limiting the kids time on the internet is not going to hurt him or her.

This brings back memories of when my father got our first computer when I was 11 or 12. At first he said "okay, no more than half an hour on the computer." He then ended up playing on the computer ALLL day so we couldn't touch it (he was super and had a night job so he was home all daytime hours), became a bum, tried cheating on my mother with women he met on it, lost his jobs, and went unemployed for several years.

That said, this does not seem to be anywhere near that situation

[Ghost Rider]

"You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly."

I made an assumption without all the facts. You did the same.

You criticize me for it. Why should I not return the favor?

You call my point "anecdotal" even when you KNOW its pretty common practice.

The wording of the OP does NOT support your assumption, especially since I turned out to be right. You're full of shit.

Like the broken record goes.

You're critizing with one vague post about your parenting history, and then you add "You're full of shit." says the boy who didn't present proof one and got lucky. Like I said, you know that doesn't fly. Somewhere inside you acknowledge that you did get lucky and you want to bluster and call it critical analysis of what I said to you.

Let's review what I said to you....again.


"You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly."

You made an assumption. You brought no proof, except your anecdotal point. I called you on that. You got lucky that your assumption was right. You know that does not work in a debate. With what I was armed with, I had the correct notion, I was then trumped by further proof. Proof to show that one should not make a conclusion without all the facts. So be it.

So in the end? You got lucky. Stop thinking this makes your position any better then what it was intially given the timeline of the evidence at hand.

[Flagg]

They're both wrong. The kid is wrong for whining about the parents somehow being hypocrits because they are not abiding by the restrictions they set down for the child.
The parents are wrong because they gave the typical "because I said so" type of answer, when they should have explained that they are adults and paid for the computer and the internet.

[Jew]

I'd really like to hear how an online game supercedes your child needing help.

That's a good question, and the answer entirely depends on the situation. One possibility comes to mind immediately: the child in question is a spoiled brat, and thinks the world revolves around him. In that case, if the parent instantly drops what he's doing, that sends the wrong message. Asking the child to wait until the parent is finished sends the correct message.

Another possibility: it wasn't specified whether the game was online with other human players. If that was the case, the parent has an obligation to the other players not to leave abruptly. To do so would be exceedingly rude.

Of course it's possible that the parent is just being a jerk, but as I mentioned before, there's not enough information for us to know.

The fact that thought enters your mind does scare me in that you think that's parenting.

That's pretty harsh, don't you think? Maybe I just considered a broader set of possible circumstances than you did.

[Soldier of Entropy]

I'd really like to hear how an online game supercedes your child needing help.

That's a good question, and the answer entirely depends on the situation. One possibility comes to mind immediately: the child in question is a spoiled brat, and thinks the world revolves around him. In that case, if the parent instantly drops what he's doing, that sends the wrong message. Asking the child to wait until the parent is finished sends the correct message.

Another possibility: it wasn't specified whether the game was online with other human players. If that was the case, the parent has an obligation to the other players not to leave abruptly. To do so would be exceedingly rude.

In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge (poker, hearts, etc.).

I thought leauge implied mutliple humans in the game. Sorry. I should have made that more clear.

[Elmca]

In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge (poker, hearts, etc.).


I thought leauge implied mutliple humans in the game. Sorry. I should have made that more clear.

Wait a second, then...

The parent was involved, socially, with other adults and refused to drop everything for the teenager at the exact moment the teen wanted them to? The parent made the teen wait a whole HOUR??!!??

Then, afterwards, the teen tries to guilt the parent into giving them more Internet time.

SoE, as has been pointed out a couple of times, you've got two scenarios here. In the first, a parent doesn't help a child when asked. In the second, the child whines about not having the same privileges as the parent. Honestly, they have nothing to do with each other.

I voted the teen was out of line. If the game could have been paused, then I could see the parent helping right away. The parent could've handled it differently, but I'm willing to bet that the hypothetical teenager has whined and bitched about his "rights" and "priviliges" and the "unfairness" so often in the past that the parent has gotten tired of trying to explain things logically and has finally resorted to "Because I'm the parent".

Christ, this whole scenario reeks of whiny teenage angst.

[Darth Servo]

Like the broken record goes.

Pot-kettle-black.

You're critizing with one vague post about your parenting history, and then you add "You're full of shit." says the boy who didn't present proof one and got lucky. Like I said, you know that doesn't fly.

No. I'm saying you shouldn't criticize MY assumption when YOUR assumption actually had LESS evidence than mine.

Somewhere inside you acknowledge that you did get lucky and you want to bluster and call it critical analysis of what I said to you.

Wrong. I simply state that you were doing the exact same thing you criticize me for.

Let's review what I said to you....again.

"You're shitting me? You're assuming something to go "He restricts elsewhere." We don't know, thus you want to pull something out of your ass to make the situation favor you?

Fucking A, you know that doesn't fly."

You don't even seem to realize that I can say the EXACT SAME THING TO YOU. YOU assumed without any justification that this was JUST the parent's PC. You NEVER justified that assumption and now try to say I'm trying to claim superiority just because I'm telling you to stop being such a fucking hypocrite.

You made an assumption. You brought no proof, except your anecdotal point. I called you on that.

So did you and you didn't even have anectotal evidence. You later admitted that my "anecdotal" evidence was common practice.

You got lucky that your assumption was right. You know that does not work in a debate.

Its better than making an unwarranted assumption and NOT being right and then throwing a shit-fit over it the way you are doing.

With what I was armed with, I had the correct notion,

Bullshit. You were only armed with an unjustified assumption--the idea that this issue was JUST over the parent's PC. There is NOTHING in the OP that suggests that conclusion. It is an unsupported assumption.

I was then trumped by further proof. Proof to show that one should not make a conclusion without all the facts. So be it.

And yet you CONTINUE to criticize ME for making an assumption without all the facts while sweeping your OWN blunder on that matter under the rug.

So in the end? You got lucky. Stop thinking this makes your position any better then what it was intially given the timeline of the evidence at hand.

Do you see anywhere where I'm saying that my position is superior just because I got lucky? No. I'm simply telling you to stop criticizing me for doing the same thing you did. Isn't lying just as big a rule infraction as making unsupported claims?

[Ghost Rider]

Let's get to very statement I took offense behind and the one you have not once brought evidence.

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

This was your evidence.

You know if you were not proven by the presentation as right, this entire statement was anedoctal bullshit that offered nothing. You then act shocked when I replied as the statement stood as nothing more then that.

Your intial had no proof from the OP, because it was an assumption you made from your personal experience, in a possible similar regard.
How it's spun out to this, really...we can go back and forth. But this is what I took particular disgust towards because it was you just pulling something out and going "Here.".

[Darth Servo]

Let's get to very statement I took offense behind and the one you have not once brought evidence.

GR, I don't know what kind of home you grew up in but MY parents set rules over everything, even MY stuff.

"You can't play with your toy's or go to your friend's house until you've done your homework/chores/etc."

This was your evidence.

And where is YOUR evidence.

You know if you were not proven by the presentation as right, this entire statement was anedoctal bullshit that offered nothing. You then act shocked when I replied as the statement stood as nothing more then that.

And you seem shocked and horrified by my returning the favor, even though YOU don't even have an anecdote. Anecdotal evidence may be worth little but its still better than what YOU'VE got backing your assumption which is jack shit.

Your intial had no proof from the OP,

And neither did you.

because it was an assumption you made from your personal experience, in a possible similar regard.
How it's spun out to this, really...we can go back and forth. But this is what I took particular disgust towards because it was you just pulling something out and going "Here.".

And again, explain how assuming this was just about the parent's PC and not the kid's surfing rules in general is different.

GR, this is NOT just about me making an unwarranted assumption. Its about YOU making one and then having a tantrum when I point out there was other ways of looking at the scenario. Initially NEITHER of us had "evidence" yet you pound on me for it while ignoring your own.

[Ghost Rider]

You're asking for my proof when you made the claim of this?

THATS a red herring since the parent probably restricts the kid's time on the net regardless of if the kid surfs at home or at the library.

And when the OP stated:

In their private residence, a teenager is working on homework after school while his father/mother is on an online non-betting card leauge(poker, hearts, etc.). The teenager comes to his parent asking for help, but the parent asks the teenager to wait until later, as he/she is in a game at the moment. Later, after the tournament is over, when the parent is not buisy, and in the private residence, not in public, the teenager respectfully points out to his/her parent that the parent imposes restrictions on the teenager's websurfing time, but does not impose said restrictions on his/her self. He/she also notes that the parent often tells the teenager to lead by example, and yet does not do so in this case. The parent refuses to answer the teenager's points except with "I am your parent," "there is a double standard," "what I say goes," etc. Who (if anyone) is out of line (see poll) and why (answer in your post)?

So unless you want to find there, something that denotes a claim that in their residence, someone other then the parent is not paying the bill...please point it out. And this whole thing stemmed from what again? Oh right, I said the teenager made a red herring statement by going "You surf the net more then I do!"

Which it is, since the crux is about internet usage, and one party has clearly more power over the other of usage of it....within one's household.

You introduced the venture that "He restricts elsewhere", without any proof of said statement, since we have no idea that he/she does this. And yet, if the OP didn't say later on that this happened...this is an unsubstationated claim upon this person.

Your proof of this?

"My parents", which is pure anecdotal proof. No different if I made the retort, my parents didn't.

And you're asking for me proof of my statement of saying "The parents owns the object in question, tough shit for the kid."

Your claim was the one requiring extraoridinary proof, because until it was stated later it was not in any form represented by the OP. Thus it was up to you to demonstrate that your claim had proof since it was never presented in the original premise under any circumstances. And you wonder why I took umbrage to your statements. Maybe I did take your for too much and getting lucky and is what you've been.