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

[Justforfun000]

There are certain activities that we do not deem kids ready for, but which we regard to be OK for adults. Driving, drinking alcohol, watching hardcore porn, etc. This does not make us hypocrites. I also expect to be able to supervise my son's activities on the Internet, but I don't expect him to supervise mine. Is this also a "double standard"?

I had a hard time with this kind of situation as a kid myself. I HATED being a minor. From day one I wanted to be able to do everything an adult could do and I resented that I wasn't given that kind of power.

I think what would be most effective in working with kids that have the same attitude I used to hold is to make them understand that other than "protection" of them, it is more about them needing to accept that only experience gives you wisdom, and many choices that involve intense subjects like sexuality, alcohol and other adult oriented pursuits have to be reaonably restricted so they can learn before they make any IRREVERSIBLE mistakes. A good way to start is to tell them that you don't know everything, but when I was your age I did. If you can sink that mindset into them to realize how thoughtless and uniformed you are in your early years, you might begin to have them understand why it's necessary.

There is as Mike says though a line drawn as well. You cannot be a smoker and then jump on your kid about it. That is truly being hypocritical from a moral standpoint. Some things you really DO have to demonstrate or you lose your credibility.

But when it comes to things you actually own as possessions as an adult citizen that pays taxes and puts a roof over people's heads? Hey, the adult has to have SOME benefits for being the responsible provider. One of those is the right to choose their own recreational time and juggle it accordingly. Children of same do not actually "own" certain things in the household, and so it's purely out of good will to let them use the parents possessions.

They may not like it, but then their only other option is leave the house, get a job and 'discover' the real world and how much fun it is to make ends meet.

[Soldier of Entropy]

No one is saying that using a computer is bad, the way smoking is. It's a matter of sharing time on the computer which Daddy bought and paid for. Any amount of time on someone else's computer should be considered a bonus, so demanding equal time is just ridiculous.

You're just stick in a "teen brat" mentality, where kiddie is right and daddy is wrong. Let's take this down to your level, so you might understand. Imagine if you had a roommate, and he wanted to use your computer (your own computer, which you paid for with your own money) and your Internet connection. You say "OK, you can use it for 2 hours". And he says "But you use it for more than 2 hours. You're a hypocrite!" What would you say?

Now imagine that this roommate has been eating your food, drinking your drinks, and expecting you to buy his clothes for him. Oh yeah, and he doesn't promise to ever pay back one red cent.

I just looked at this and realized that this is either a red herring or stawman, not sure which. Your scenario involves there only being one computer availible; nowhere is this said in the OP. In your scenario, the reason that the computer owner is restricting his roomate's time is because he/she wants to be able to utilize the computer-I'm not 100% sure on this, but if my understanding of them is right, then I think that I am right.

Also, while it is true that most children don't actively pay their parents for those things, when the parent is elderly, don't their children often, or at least sometimes, pay for them to go into a nursing home/take care of them at their house/etc.

[Magus]

I just looked at this and realized that this is either a red herring or stawman, not sure which. Your scenario involves there only being one computer availible; nowhere is this said in the OP. In your scenario, the reason that the computer owner is restricting his roomate's time is because he/she wants to be able to utilize the computer-I'm not 100% sure on this, but if my understanding of them is right, then I think that I am right.

Also, while it is true that most children don't actively pay their parents for those things, when the parent is elderly, don't their children often, or at least sometimes, pay for them to go into a nursing home/take care of them at their house/etc.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here, but how can you logically attack the idea that a parent can say "My children should be limited to 2 hours a day, whereas I need no such restrictions"?

[Darth Wong]

I just looked at this and realized that this is either a red herring or stawman, not sure which. Your scenario involves there only being one computer availible; nowhere is this said in the OP.

Bullshit. If I own the computer, I get to say who uses it and when, you stupid little shit. It doesn't matter how many computers I own. Do you walk into a private business and demand use of their computers if one is currently idle? Do you think they have a "double standard" if they get to use them and you don't?

In your scenario, the reason that the computer owner is restricting his roomate's time is because he/she wants to be able to utilize the computer-I'm not 100% sure on this, but if my understanding of them is right, then I think that I am right.

What exactly is your argument? You are assuming some kind of intrinsic right to use other peoples' property; justify this assumption. If you have two houses, can I demand use of one of them based on the fact that you're not currently residing in it?

Also, while it is true that most children don't actively pay their parents for those things, when the parent is elderly, don't their children often, or at least sometimes, pay for them to go into a nursing home/take care of them at their house/etc.

No. It was true during the agrarian era, but in the modern age parents are expected to take care of their own retirement. In fact, most kids wait to inherit whatever is left over from their parents.

At the end of the day, there are two things you obviously do not understand.

1) I do not have to justify my right to say who uses my property and when. That right is inherent to the concept of ownership. Without it, the entire concept of ownership is meaningless.

2) As a parent, I have the right to set boundaries for my children. These boundaries are related to the task of raising the child to adulthood. They will not always be the same as the boundaries I set for myself, because I have already reached adulthood. I've demonstrated the ability to act as a responsible adult, hold down a real job, attain a decent education, etc. Until you've done that, you don't deserve the rights of an adult and it is absurd of you to expect them.

Once more: anybody who does not understand these things is obviously nothing more than an ignorant brat.

[Soldier of Entropy]

No, please understand that I am not saying that you are wrong in saying that you have that right. I am simply saying that I think that the concept is more complex than that; In your "roomate" situation, there is only one computer. The OP does not say that there is only one computer in the house. In your scenario, the reason for restricting time is because only one person can use the computer at a time. In this scenario, it is because the parent has decided that too much computer time is bad for the child. It's different.

[Darth Wong]

No, please understand that I am not saying that you are wrong in saying that you have that right. I am simply saying that I think that the concept is more complex than that; In your "roomate" situation, there is only one computer. The OP does not say that there is only one computer in the house. In your scenario, the reason for restricting time is because only one person can use the computer at a time. In this scenario, it is because the parent has decided that too much computer time is bad for the child. It's different.

Not with respect to Major Maxillary's post which I was responding to, in which he suggested that parents did not have the right to set rules which they do not follow themselves. In case you didn't notice, analogies are not intended to be identical in every aspect, or for every conceivable argument. They are only intended to illustrate a particular point.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Not with respect to Major Maxillary's post which I was responding to, in which he suggested that parents did not have the right to set rules which they do not follow themselves. In case you didn't notice, analogies are not intended to be identical in every aspect, or for every conceivable argument. They are only intended to illustrate a particular point.

Okay then, never mind.

[Junghalli]

Both. But I'd say the parent was slightly more in the wrong.

The OP made it fairly clear he wasn't doing anything important. He was playing a game. Helping out your child > an online poker game. If you put your recreation at a higher priority than helping your child that's screwed up parenting if you ask me. And I don't buy the "there's other players on the other end so it would have been rude to leave" argument. He can make his apologies and leave the game; unless they're total jackasses they'll understand that real life responsibilities supercede an internet card game (and if they don't that's their problem).
That's not to say the parent isn't in his rights to ask if the help needed is urgent, and ask the child to wait if it isn't, but he should have asked. He shouldn't have just brushed it off.

The child is also wrong, however, in accusing the parent of hypocrisy. Because as many others have already pointed out it is the parent's computer, the kid's just borrowing it, and fundamentally if somebody lets you use their stuff that's a privilidge, not a right. However, this is where the parent made the second mistake, as he should have explained this to the child instead of just going "because this is my house and my word is law!"

[Flagg]

Profanity is bad for people.

Since when is profanity bad for people?

[AniThyng]

Profanity is bad for people.

Since when is profanity bad for people?

Telling someone to "Please be quiet" and "Goddamn shut the fuck up" are two very different things, especially if you launch into the second one right away,l i suppose.

[Magus]

Since when is profanity bad for people?

Goodness knows I don't know - ask Major Maxillary's parents, whose argument I was using for demonstrative purposes.

The OP made it fairly clear he wasn't doing anything important. He was playing a game. Helping out your child > an online poker game. If you put your recreation at a higher priority than helping your child that's screwed up parenting if you ask me. And I don't buy the "there's other players on the other end so it would have been rude to leave" argument. He can make his apologies and leave the game; unless they're total jackasses they'll understand that real life responsibilities supercede an internet card game (and if they don't that's their problem).

Well, but what about the social aspect? If it's rude to pull mom away from her bridge game she hosts over at her house, it's similarly rude to pull dad away from his online poker tournament, especially if real money is at stake. Now, since the people being played with are faceless names, the parent should try to finish up within a reasonable time - once the trick is over, assuming no real money's exchanging hands. If there is money involved, the parent gets considerably more time to wrap it up, since he's already made an investment into the game that should be respected.

[Flagg]

Profanity is bad for people.

Since when is profanity bad for people?

Telling someone to "Please be quiet" and "Goddamn shut the fuck up" are two very different things, especially if you launch into the second one right away,l i suppose.

Yeah, but that's just being rude.

[Darth Wong]

Profanity is bad for people

Since when is profanity bad for people?

Telling someone to "Please be quiet" and "Goddamn shut the fuck up" are two very different things, especially if you launch into the second one right away,l i suppose.

The problem with civility rules is that people elevate the importance of civility far beyond what it really is. Breaking civility rules is a mere social gaffe, not a real ethical breach. And yet people who commit real ethical breaches routinely act as though you can't insult them, because that's breaking the rules of civility!

Case in point (besides the most obvious example, which is the US Congress): someone who says that the solution to most social problems is "ethnic homogeneity" and then complains to the moderators when you accuse him of being a racist, because "racist" is an insult. And yes, this is not just a hypothetical example; it actually happened. There are plenty of other examples as well.

[Junghalli]

Well, but what about the social aspect? If it's rude to pull mom away from her bridge game she hosts over at her house, it's similarly rude to pull dad away from his online poker tournament, especially if real money is at stake. Now, since the people being played with are faceless names, the parent should try to finish up within a reasonable time - once the trick is over, assuming no real money's exchanging hands. If there is money involved, the parent gets considerably more time to wrap it up, since he's already made an investment into the game that should be respected.

If the child needed help urgently, then I don't think it would be rude to pull the parent away from the game. As I said helping your child > your own recreation, and your fellow players should understand that. If the help needed was not urgent then yes, the parent is within his rights to finish up the game first. My point was the parent should have asked. A simple "does it have to be right now?" would have sufficed.

I don't think it particularly rude for the child to go up to the parent and ask for help when he's otherwise engaged. If it's not urgent it's a momentary interruption at worst to ask if the child will wait a bit, and if it is urgent as I said helping your kid > a game. Also, I think a bridge game with the neighbors would be a different social situation, as it's a more intimate venue than an internet game with people who can't see or hear you and to whom you're probably nothing more than a random user handle (in that case it would arguably be poor judgement to approach the parent while he was in the game unless the help needed was at least semi-urgent).

If real money is at stake the dynamic changes a bit, as the child is arguably effectively costing the parent money by pulling him away from the game.

[Darth Wong]

If the child needed help urgently, then I don't think it would be rude to pull the parent away from the game. As I said helping your child > your own recreation, and your fellow players should understand that. If the help needed was not urgent then yes, the parent is within his rights to finish up the game first. My point was the parent should have asked. A simple "does it have to be right now?" would have sufficed

You're full of shit. This is a teenager we're talking about here, not an infant. He should be able to do his own homework with minimal supervision, for fuck's sake. Yes, it's good for Daddy to help, but honestly, if a teenager needs Daddy to come RUSHING OVER RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I NEED HELP DADDY then he has a helluva lot more problems than limited Internet time.

[Junghalli]

You're full of shit. This is a teenager we're talking about here, not an infant. He should be able to do his own homework with minimal supervision, for fuck's sake. Yes, it's good for Daddy to help, but honestly, if a teenager needs Daddy to come RUSHING OVER RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I NEED HELP DADDY then he has a helluva lot more problems than limited Internet time.

I was thinking that there might be a time constraint of some kind at work but now that I think about it you're right. In this particular situation there would ordinarily be no question of urgency, I was thinking in too general a sense.

[Knife]

Well, but what about the social aspect? If it's rude to pull mom away from her bridge game she hosts over at her house, it's similarly rude to pull dad away from his online poker tournament, especially if real money is at stake. Now, since the people being played with are faceless names, the parent should try to finish up within a reasonable time - once the trick is over, assuming no real money's exchanging hands. If there is money involved, the parent gets considerably more time to wrap it up, since he's already made an investment into the game that should be respected.

If the child needed help urgently, then I don't think it would be rude to pull the parent away from the game. As I said helping your child > your own recreation, and your fellow players should understand that. If the help needed was not urgent then yes, the parent is within his rights to finish up the game first. My point was the parent should have asked. A simple "does it have to be right now?" would have sufficed.

I don't think it particularly rude for the child to go up to the parent and ask for help when he's otherwise engaged. If it's not urgent it's a momentary interruption at worst to ask if the child will wait a bit, and if it is urgent as I said helping your kid > a game. Also, I think a bridge game with the neighbors would be a different social situation, as it's a more intimate venue than an internet game with people who can't see or hear you and to whom you're probably nothing more than a random user handle (in that case it would arguably be poor judgement to approach the parent while he was in the game unless the help needed was at least semi-urgent).

Pfft. Besides the homeworks due date, I see no reason why the kids subjective decision to do the homework 'now' and hence need the parents 'help now' translates into 'emergency'.

If real money is at stake the dynamic changes a bit, as the child is arguably effectively costing the parent money by pulling him away from the game.

I'm curious as to the reason that money seems to change the situation here and not any other factor, such as the parents doing something for themselves?

[Junghalli]

Pfft. Besides the homeworks due date, I see no reason why the kids subjective decision to do the homework 'now' and hence need the parents 'help now' translates into 'emergency'.

You are correct. I was thinking of extraordinary circumstances but practically under this situation there should be no particular urgency, see my concession to DW that this is not a practical ethical judgement.

I'm curious as to the reason that money seems to change the situation here and not any other factor, such as the parents doing something for themselves?

If there's money involved then leaving the game would possibly materially hurt the parents. Whereas if it's just a game for fun then helping your child should be a higher concern than your fun (although in this particular situation, you and DW are correct, there is no urgent reason the parent should drop everything).

[Knife]

If there's money involved then leaving the game would possibly materially hurt the parents. Whereas if it's just a game for fun then helping your child should be a higher concern than your fun (although in this particular situation, you and DW are correct, there is no urgent reason the parent should drop everything).

Again, why is money the only factor you bring up rather than anything else? Surely, unless dad is betting thousands of dollars online, any money involved in online gambling is actually trivial and what we're really talking about here is not actual money loss, but loss of personal quality time.

Your kids might very well be > than a game but that doesn't necessarily translate into your personal time< kids silly temper tantrum.

[Junghalli]

Again, why is money the only factor you bring up rather than anything else?

Because its loss is tangibly harmful. And it's not the only factor I would use. If the parent was, say, carrying out an important work assignment, the situation would also be different.

Surely, unless dad is betting thousands of dollars online, any money involved in online gambling is actually trivial and what we're really talking about here is not actual money loss, but loss of personal quality time.

As I said, your personal recreation should be of lower priority than helping the child.

Your kids might very well be > than a game but that doesn't necessarily translate into your personal time< kids silly temper tantrum.

I agree. Under the circumstances I'd say the parent should wrap up the game as quickly as possible but isn't obligated to drop everything.

[Darth Wong]

As I said, your personal recreation should be of lower priority than helping the child.

"Helping a child" is a somewhat misleading term when talking about a teenager demanding help with his homework. It implies that we're talking about a child in need, when in fact we're just talking about a lazy-ass teenager. In point of fact, the school expects the student to do his homework without asking his parents for help.

[Darth Servo]

"Helping a child" is a somewhat misleading term when talking about a teenager demanding help with his homework. It implies that we're talking about a child in need, when in fact we're just talking about a lazy-ass teenager. In point of fact, the school expects the student to do his homework without asking his parents for help.

Well, there are piss poor teachers out there who can't explain a given concept clearly the first time around. Granted, in that situation, the student's first attempt at clearing things up should be "ask the teacher a question" followed by "read the textbook himself".

[Junghalli]

"Helping a child" is a somewhat misleading term when talking about a teenager demanding help with his homework. It implies that we're talking about a child in need, when in fact we're just talking about a lazy-ass teenager. In point of fact, the school expects the student to do his homework without asking his parents for help.

I'd say that depends on the exact nature of the "help" the child requests. If the child has trouble understanding the material and wants the parent's help in understanding it so he can do it for himself in the future, then I think it qualifies as legitimate help. If the child is just being lazy and wants the parent to do his work for him, then yes, you're right.

[Big Phil]

"Helping a child" is a somewhat misleading term when talking about a teenager demanding help with his homework. It implies that we're talking about a child in need, when in fact we're just talking about a lazy-ass teenager. In point of fact, the school expects the student to do his homework without asking his parents for help.

I'd say that depends on the exact nature of the "help" the child requests. If the child has trouble understanding the material and wants the parent's help in understanding it so he can do it for himself in the future, then I think it qualifies as legitimate help. If the child is just being lazy and wants the parent to do his work for him, then yes, you're right.

And how is the parent at fault for saying "I'm busy now, I'll help you in an hour?" That's what this kid is bitching about, after all.

[Junghalli]

And how is the parent at fault for saying "I'm busy now, I'll help you in an hour?" That's what this kid is bitching about, after all.

I'm no longer arguing that he is. His only mistake was in responding poorly to the child's charge of hypocrisy.