"You know as well as I do that if they are left to their own devices, a shit ton of kids are going to make terribly poor decisions regarding their life."
That, my friend, would be the very same reality you were talking about. Personally, I think such a scenario would get the youth to man up and grow some. There's nothing quite like the cold cruelty of the world to make people smarter and stronger.
Scott, you know as well as I do that the original poster can't move out and have as good a life. Therefore, his mother holds all of the cards. Again, you may not like the concept, by why can't you admit that this is the reality?
I recognize that reality. All I'm saying is that if a 15 year old punk kid wants to suffer in the cold cruel world, who are we to tell them they can not?[/quote]I'm not saying that the choice to abandon the parents at such a young age is a good one, I'm saying that it is inhuman to deprive someone of that choice.
If you disagree, and you think that kids should not have civil rights, then what do you think about crazy hick parents? Some of these people keep their kids out of public schools. They teach their kids crazy conspiracy religions bullshit nonsense. They make their kids perform back-breaking labor. They never let their kids see the real world. They abuse them in all sorts of ways. They deprive them basic medical treatment. They treat them like actual slaves.
In terms of scale, this is nothing close to the common practice of forcing your kid to stay in their room for a few hours, or giving them a typical spanking. However, in terms of civil liberties, it is not very different. Grounding your child for a few hours deprives them of the same right of mobility that they lose if crazy parents lock them in the basement. Giving your kid a spanking deprives them of the same right as a severe beating, or even sexual abuse.
Obviously, you are not going to agree that beating or imprisoning your own children is ok. But I ask you, why is it not ok? I say that it is not ok because it deprives your children of inalienable rights that should be granted to all living human beings. Is locking your kid in the basement for a year wrong. I say yes it is, and so is grounding them for even a second, both for the same reason.
I'm in agreement with the "old fogies" on here...for the most part. If the kid has the balls/desire to step up and take responsibility for his own life and well being then disobey away and when the hammer comes down move out. On the other hand he did pay for it himself...therefore I personally wouldn't deny him that particular trip. Once something is bought and paid for, particularly by the child, it's theirs and you have no right to say anything about it.
The fact that a child CAN think for themselves does not mean that they SHOULD (or at least not all of the thinking). I'll go ahead and quote Qui Gon Jinn here: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.". Kids are often more intelligent then they are given credit for, but there are few that would be capable of making it on their own.
I can think of a great many times when my parents said/did something I disagreed with and now looking back on those times I find that had I been in their shoes I would have done the exact same thing. There was no way I was ready or capable of making some of those decisions no matter how much I thought of myself back then.
All I'm saying is that if a 15 year old punk kid wants to suffer in the cold cruel world, who are we to tell them they can not?
We are people that care about our children. I'm not sure what's so bad about that.
If you disagree, and you think that kids should not have civil rights, then what do you think about crazy hick parents?
I have a whole lot to say about that, but that's a long tangent. It infuriates me when I see parents who are incompetent. The only thing that I can reassure myself with is that the State will step in at some point - but that thought provides little solace.
Thank you for the offer, but I prefer to walk around and look for things rather than search the internet before hand to find the things I want. If I do think of something, I will tell you. At the moment, I'm still hoping my mom will cave in and let me go.
I was thinking more along the lines of certain cosplayers you wanted to have a picture of or anything else that you can't find on the web. I hope things go well for you.
Li_Akahi, did you buy the tickets yourself? If you did or if you received them as a gift, I feel as though you have a right to go. If your mother purchased them for you then he has every right to take those tickets away from you.
I enjoy listening to Scott and find him to be smart and observant and possessing a terrific sense of humor. But I'm with hungryjoe and the rest of the old guy/parents. It's almost like Scott is playing devil's advocate here. Parents must give their children structure and discipline. It's wrong not to.
Li_Akahi, did you buy the tickets yourself? If you did or if you received them as a gift, I feel as though you have a right to go. If your mother purchased them for you then he has every right to take those tickets away from you.
I did buy the ticket for myself with money from my job. My mom had no hand in all with the money, it was 100% my own.
Just to add something. I'm not saying that you can't punish your kids period. I'm saying that you shouldn't be allowed to infringe upon your kids inalienable human rights. Let me explain further using our current Otakon example.
You have a kid who wants to go to Otakon. Ok. His parents should not be allowed to infringe upon his rights to travel and property. However, they are under no obligation to pay for his travel or provide him any aid whatsoever. Oh, he needs a ride to the con? Better pay Greyhound. Needs a hotel? Better make a reservation. Needs a ticket? Better pre-reg. If the kid can make it to Otakon completely on his own without his parent's help, then he should not be denied his right to go.
However, let's say the kid is depending on his parents to give him a ride and get him a hotel room. Now we have a different situation here! The parents can't deny the kid his right to travel. If he walks to Otakon and sleeps on the streets, that's the win for him, but the parents sure as hell can refuse to pay for his hotel and refuse to provide their car services.
You can still punish, reward and raise your kids very easily in very many ways without infringing upon their basic human rights. There should never be a need to hit, detain, shut up, steal from, etc. a child. And of course, if your child is so bad that they are in fact infringing upon the rights of others, and they are found guilty, then their rights are forfeit. Military school ftw.
First off, I agree with Scott on a few things. Your parent is obligated to provide food, shelter, etc. until you are 18. If they don't, they go to jail. Also, your parent has every right to say they won't provide transportation to Otakon for you, but if you have a means to get there on your own, they have no right to detain you.
Then there's Steve and Joe. Staying on your parent's good side is probably for the best, unless they are seriously abusing you. I also sympathize with the mother. Given the situation, and I know many people personally who have been in the same situation, she has been working hard for you and you don't seem to completely realize how much pain she has been through.
First off, and don't take this the wrong way, I have to say that both of your parents are immature. Your dad is trying hard to be the cool parent, and your mom isn't being rational. That being said, your mom isn't going going to respond to reason when you protest that she has no right to detain you. Also with that being said, you should absolutely not under any circumstances run away from home to be with your dad at Otakon. Either route will surely end up in a violent problem.
If you want to end fix this in a nonviolent way, and you don't have to if you don't want to, you have to make your mom allow you to go to Otakon of her own free will. Rym has stated the best and most logical method of handling your parents. If you tried what he said and it didn't work, you did it wrong.
What you have to decide is whether you think Otakon and your rights are worth a messy life situation. If they are and you want to teach your parents a lesson, then I'll support you. But if you decide that you respect your parents enough to not turn their lives upside down, I also support that decision.
Thank you, Sail, for being the happy medium. Most of the people have responded on either one side or the other, it's refreshing to hear someone argue both sides.
Your parent is obligated to provide food, shelter, etc. until you are 18. If they don't, they go to jail.
The parents wouldn't go to jail unless the kids died or were injured. They would more likely lose custody of their kids. They might even lose their parental rights if things go far enough.
Also, your parent has every right to say they won't provide transportation to Otakon for you, but if you have a means to get there on your own, they have no right to detain you.
Actually, the parents do have the right to detain the kid. If he leaves anyway, they can declare him a runaway and have the cops pick him up and have Juvenile Court help deal with him.
Morejuvenile stuff to read (I'm guessing he's from Maryland since he said he lives in Howard County and he wants to go to Otakan.)
Also, your parent has every right to say they won't provide transportation to Otakon for you, but if you have a means to get there on your own, they have no right to detain you.
Actually, the parentsdohave the right to detain the kid. If he leaves anyway, they can declare him a runaway and have the copspick him upand haveJuvenile Courthelp deal with him.Yes, I know this. What I am saying is that this is wrong, and should not be. All human beings deserve the right to move about freely. Again, there are exceptions for people found guilty of crimes who lose many of their rights.
Actually, the parentsdohave the right to detain the kid. If he leaves anyway, they can declare him a runaway and have the copspick him upand haveJuvenile Courthelp deal with him.
O rly. Well, my opinion still stands. Mr. Akahi's gotta make a decision about how important this is to him and act upon it.
Should and can are two completely different things here, Scott. Children - under the protection of their parents - have limits. In the best cases, parents do what is right for their children. In this case, the kid's mother feels that it is the right thing to do to keep him home. End of argument. This actually brings up many more things beyond someone wanting to go to convention and mom says no. Children do not have the experience to make entirely informed decisions. That's why parents have responsibilities. We don't push kids out into the world, we protect them until we believe they are ready. For better or for worse, that's what parents are for. In a legal sense, while children are the legal responsibility of their parents, they must abide by their parents' wishes or take the consequences.
Damn, this argument does make me feel old, but I am a high school teacher. Oh, and unethical teachers piss me off. Every time I hear complaints about "He fails people he doesn't like," it drives me nuts. Partially because I know it happens, but also because no one ever goes to principals with data in hand. Everyone bitches on online forums. If a teacher is truly, truly being unethical there are a multitude of ways to deal with it that will actually help.
You are 17and you live under your moms' roof. You are your moms responsability, did you ask her for her permision before you bought the tickets for Otakon? Now, you told us that you live with your mom, and not your father. So I am assuming that your parents do not live together, also you told us that your father goes to Otakon on Friday. How is the relationship between you dad and your mom? I wonder if your mom belief that your dad is too much of an influence in your life even though you do not life with him.
Scott is kind of right, grades do not matter that much in high school, as long as you graduate from high school you can go to a good Community College (Northern Virginia Community College) and then if you get a G.P.A. of above 3.5 you can basically transfer to any College on the Eastern side of the USA, many people that I know transfered from such a community college to UVA and even Georgetown University. However, most of them worked and payed their own tuition while in the community college.
The main thing is that if you are underage you are under the rules of the people that mantain you, if you truly want to be independent from anyone, once you finish high school and become 18 years old ask for some money from your mom move from your house go to a community college, pay your own tuition, work, pay for your own housing , some good amount of money will comeback if you ask for Fafsa and your taxes. I know many people that have done that so if it is true is kind of hard it is not impossible.
Enough of my ranting, if you really want to go to Otakon, my advise if: cool yourself off, then wait until tomorrow, and talk with your mom after most of your shores are done, then tell her you want to talk with her but do not mention Otakon at all. Ask her what does she expects from you academically. Then after she answer you tell her that you indeed kind of mess up on yout studies, but most importantly be truthfull to her but be respectfull. Tell her that you do not enjoy algebra but you know it is important (because come one, algebra is important !), I know it is hard to change and to stop playing videogames because I myself preffered to finish or contine playing Zelda instead of studing for my A.P.s Keep continue taling to her and also explain her that Otakon is important to you but do not give the reason that you have to go just because you already paid for it but be cool while talking to her, if she understand cool, but if not then compromise with her. I think that if you decide to run from home and got to Otakon without her permision it will jsut get worse.
Let's take two different approaches to the travel issue, Scott.
1) A four-year-old child wants to run into the road in front of your house. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
Likewise, a 14-year-old wants to travel across the country by bus alone. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
2) Let's tackle this from a science/psychology angle. We all know that children are not capable of understanding, processing, and internalizing certain concepts at certain mental and emotional stages in their lives. Take, for instance, Piaget's stages of cognitive development. In early stages, children are subject to operant (classical) conditioning and cannot make self-actualized decisions. It's a brainwashing and peer-pressure game.
By adolescence, Erikson said pre-teens and teens are just discarding symbols for abstract ideas. During the ages of 11-18 (with certain leeway made for early maturation), people still wrestle to define their egos and base their decisions on passion and selfish desire rather than pure logic.
In short, they are scientifically less able to make proper decisions for themselves.
Should and can are two completely different things here, Scott. Children - under the protection of their parents - have limits. In the best cases, parents do what is right for their children. In this case, the kid's mother feels that it is the right thing to do to keep him home. End of argument. This actually brings up many more things beyond someone wanting to go to convention and mom says no. Children do not have the experience to make entirely informed decisions. That's why parents have responsibilities. We don't push kids out into the world, we protect them until we believe they are ready. For better or for worse, that's what parents are for. In a legal sense, while children are the legal responsibility of their parents, they must abide by their parents' wishes or take the consequences.
Damn, this argument does make me feel old, but I am a high school teacher. Oh, and unethical teachers piss me off. Every time I hear complaints about "He fails people he doesn't like," it drives me nuts. Partially because I know it happens, but also because no one ever goes to principals with data in hand. Everyone bitches on online forums. If a teacher is truly, truly being unethical there are a multitude of ways to deal with it that will actually help.
Yes, this is how things are, but it is now how they should be. Children are human beings. If all of the rights and responsibilities of children are transferred to their parents or guardians, then the children basically become property. I don't think we are having much of a disagreement about what is best for children, or what children should do, or anything like that. All I'm saying is that children are human beings who deserve the same rights as all other human beings. There has to be a limit to how much control parents have over their children. On one end children are slaves of their parents. On the other end, children run off and get killed because they don't know any better. There is a happy place in the middle where children are treated fairly, but have enough protection that they have good odds of growing up. I just personally feel that our current US society leans far too much towards the slavery end of the deal.
Let's take two different approaches to the travel issue, Scott.
1) A four-year-old child wants to run into the road in front of your house. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
Likewise, a 14-year-old wants to travel across the country by bus alone. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
2) Let's tackle this from a science/psychology angle. We all know that children are not capable of understanding, processing, and internalizing certain concepts at certain mental and emotional stages in their lives. Take, for instance, Piaget's stages of cognitive development. In early stages, children are subject to operant (classical) conditioning and cannot make self-actualized decisions. It's a brainwashing and peer-pressure game.
By adolescence, Erikson said pre-teens and teens are just discarding symbols for abstract ideas. During the ages of 11-18 (with certain leeway made for early maturation), people still wrestle to define their egos and base their decisions on passion and selfish desire rather than pure logic.
In short, they are scientifically less able to make proper decisions for themselves.
Yes, all of that is true. It still doesn't mean that you have to take away all the essential civil liberties from your children in order to raise them safely. Your example of the four year-old running into the street for example. Well, what if a 30 year old guy, who has full adult rights, runs out into the street? I am actually allowed to run out and save his life. I'm not infringing on his right to travel, I'm saving his life, very directly. It's no different with the four year old. You don't need to take away rights to raise kids well and keep them safe.
Yes, all of that is true. It still doesn't mean that you have to take away all the essential civil liberties from your children in order to raise them safely. Your example of the four year-old running into the street for example. Well, what if a 30 year old guy, who has full adult rights, runs out into the street? I am actually allowed to run out and save his life. I'm not infringing on his right to travel, I'm saving his life, very directly. It's no different with the four year old. You don't need to take away rights to raise kids well and keep them safe.
No, at that age it is your responsibility to let him be run over so that his genes will not be allowed to reproduce.
Just a couple of comments and I'm done with this thread.
As a parent, there are two main concerns regarding your children: 1) To protect them; and 2) To enable them to thrive.
If you stick to those two, you'll be pretty darn successful as a parent. You are attempting to apply rights in the United States Constitution to children. However, you are perverting the Constitution to say that it ought to apply to the relationship between a parent and an adult. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
At best, your position is cruel. You are denying a parent's ability to protect their children and to enable their success. It's that simple. Forget your grandstanding, and just think about its conclusion. Under your beliefs, many more children will be hurt. Period. How you can embrace this is beyond me.
Any child psychologist will tell you that a child who does not feel protected is going to suffer some pretty serious damage. This is not a new concept. Stop pretending that kids are little adults. They are not. Their brains are developing in ways that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Knowing that they are protected allows them to develop, and allows them to take risks. Children that do not feel protected are the children that sit in the corner afraid to do or say anything.
I've spent many years professionally protecting children that have been abused and/or neglected. I've also spent many years prosecuting grown children that have had no parenting. Perhaps if you've seen the damage that I've seen, you'd rethink your position.
That's all I've got to say since this thread gives me a headache.
I have no problem with people protecting their children or enabling them to thrive. I agree that children are far less developed than adults and need to be treated differently. I'm not saying that children should have the exact same rights as adults. I'm just saying that regardless of all that, they are still human beings who deserve basic inalienable human rights. Also, remember I'm one of those people who puts liberty before safety.
If you're going to use the developmental state of the human mind as criteria for whether or not someone has human rights, then what about mentally disabled people? What about a brain dead person or person with Alzheimers? Do they never get any rights beyond those of a child? What about parrots or monkeys that are actually smarter than some human children? Maybe they need rights beyond those of an animal? There are plenty of grown adults out there who are less mentally ready for the rights and responsibilities of adulthood than some teenagers out there. Should these people have their rights taken away?
Giving full adult constitutional rights to children is obviously crazy. Right to bear arms for children? Not a chance. Right to vote and run for office? Definitely not at least until you are paying some taxes. Some rights and responsibilities can only be granted to people once they are ready for them. Parents also obviously have some rights and responsibilities concerning their children. However, in our current US society I think there are certain inalienable human rights that even a 1 hour-old should have that we are unreasonably denying to people for 18 years.
I'm not saying that children should have the exact same rights as adults. I'm just saying that regardless of all that, they are still human beings who deserve basic inalienable human rights.
Is going to Otakon one of these rights? Of course not. I'd say this mother is well within her rights as a parent without infringing on the kids rights. Just making sure we're all on the same page.
Yes, Scott, the rights of the mentally disabled ARE severely curtailed. That's fine, because the litmus test for doing so is a scientific one that discerns whether they are cognitively able to assume the responsibility that comes with "rights."
Is going to Otakon one of these rights? Of course not. I'd say this mother is well within her rights as a parent without infringing on the kids rights. Just making sure we're all on the same page.
If he pays for the transportation, the ticket, the hotel, the food and everything else with money that he has earned himself, then I think going to Otakon is a right.
Yes, Scott, the rights of the mentally disabled ARE severely curtailed. That's fine, because the litmus test for doing so is a scientific one that discerns whether they are cognitively able to assume the responsibility that comes with "rights."
That's not cool. If you think that's how it should be, then how would you feel about applying this same test to all people? I can guarantee you there will be 12 year olds that pass and 40 year olds that do not. Should those 40 year olds have fewer rights than the 12 year olds?
Um...first of all, I can provide some degree of proof for the Algebra 2 argument, as I took it in 11th grade too. At Boston Latin, no less. I entered in the 9th grade, so I'm in the B class. If you don't believe me you can look through this nasty PDF they don't warn you is a PDF on the website. Latin likes to be weird, so you're looking for Class IIB because theoretically you move up, up, up to Class I. Onto the other argument: I find denying anything for a C kind of silly myself, and he was not told this was part of the requirement for him to go to Otakon, so pulling it out from under him isn't very fair, and I think at the very least she should pay him back the money for his pre reg, assuming it is non refundable like Anime Boston's.
Is going to Otakon one of these rights? Of course not. I'd say this mother is well within her rights as a parent without infringing on the kids rights. Just making sure we're all on the same page.
If he pays for the transportation, the ticket, the hotel, the food and everything else with money that he has earned himself, then I think going to Otakon is a right.
I highly doubt this is the case. Also . . . I hope you have kids. ~_-
It's official, this punk kid is going to his third Otakon this year! YEAH! To all of you who have given me support, I thank you and I hope to see you at Otakon. I will be cosplaying as Urahara Kisuke on Friday and Link on Saturday and Sunday.
Comments
That, my friend, would be the very same reality you were talking about. Personally, I think such a scenario would get the youth to man up and grow some. There's nothing quite like the cold cruelty of the world to make people smarter and stronger.
If you disagree, and you think that kids should not have civil rights, then what do you think about crazy hick parents? Some of these people keep their kids out of public schools. They teach their kids crazy conspiracy religions bullshit nonsense. They make their kids perform back-breaking labor. They never let their kids see the real world. They abuse them in all sorts of ways. They deprive them basic medical treatment. They treat them like actual slaves.
In terms of scale, this is nothing close to the common practice of forcing your kid to stay in their room for a few hours, or giving them a typical spanking. However, in terms of civil liberties, it is not very different. Grounding your child for a few hours deprives them of the same right of mobility that they lose if crazy parents lock them in the basement. Giving your kid a spanking deprives them of the same right as a severe beating, or even sexual abuse.
Obviously, you are not going to agree that beating or imprisoning your own children is ok. But I ask you, why is it not ok? I say that it is not ok because it deprives your children of inalienable rights that should be granted to all living human beings. Is locking your kid in the basement for a year wrong. I say yes it is, and so is grounding them for even a second, both for the same reason.
The fact that a child CAN think for themselves does not mean that they SHOULD (or at least not all of the thinking). I'll go ahead and quote Qui Gon Jinn here: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.". Kids are often more intelligent then they are given credit for, but there are few that would be capable of making it on their own.
I can think of a great many times when my parents said/did something I disagreed with and now looking back on those times I find that had I been in their shoes I would have done the exact same thing. There was no way I was ready or capable of making some of those decisions no matter how much I thought of myself back then.
You have a kid who wants to go to Otakon. Ok. His parents should not be allowed to infringe upon his rights to travel and property. However, they are under no obligation to pay for his travel or provide him any aid whatsoever. Oh, he needs a ride to the con? Better pay Greyhound. Needs a hotel? Better make a reservation. Needs a ticket? Better pre-reg. If the kid can make it to Otakon completely on his own without his parent's help, then he should not be denied his right to go.
However, let's say the kid is depending on his parents to give him a ride and get him a hotel room. Now we have a different situation here! The parents can't deny the kid his right to travel. If he walks to Otakon and sleeps on the streets, that's the win for him, but the parents sure as hell can refuse to pay for his hotel and refuse to provide their car services.
You can still punish, reward and raise your kids very easily in very many ways without infringing upon their basic human rights. There should never be a need to hit, detain, shut up, steal from, etc. a child. And of course, if your child is so bad that they are in fact infringing upon the rights of others, and they are found guilty, then their rights are forfeit. Military school ftw.
First off, I agree with Scott on a few things. Your parent is obligated to provide food, shelter, etc. until you are 18. If they don't, they go to jail. Also, your parent has every right to say they won't provide transportation to Otakon for you, but if you have a means to get there on your own, they have no right to detain you.
Then there's Steve and Joe. Staying on your parent's good side is probably for the best, unless they are seriously abusing you. I also sympathize with the mother. Given the situation, and I know many people personally who have been in the same situation, she has been working hard for you and you don't seem to completely realize how much pain she has been through.
First off, and don't take this the wrong way, I have to say that both of your parents are immature. Your dad is trying hard to be the cool parent, and your mom isn't being rational. That being said, your mom isn't going going to respond to reason when you protest that she has no right to detain you. Also with that being said, you should absolutely not under any circumstances run away from home to be with your dad at Otakon. Either route will surely end up in a violent problem.
If you want to end fix this in a nonviolent way, and you don't have to if you don't want to, you have to make your mom allow you to go to Otakon of her own free will. Rym has stated the best and most logical method of handling your parents. If you tried what he said and it didn't work, you did it wrong.
What you have to decide is whether you think Otakon and your rights are worth a messy life situation. If they are and you want to teach your parents a lesson, then I'll support you. But if you decide that you respect your parents enough to not turn their lives upside down, I also support that decision.
More juvenile stuff to read (I'm guessing he's from Maryland since he said he lives in Howard County and he wants to go to Otakan.)
Damn, this argument does make me feel old, but I am a high school teacher. Oh, and unethical teachers piss me off. Every time I hear complaints about "He fails people he doesn't like," it drives me nuts. Partially because I know it happens, but also because no one ever goes to principals with data in hand. Everyone bitches on online forums. If a teacher is truly, truly being unethical there are a multitude of ways to deal with it that will actually help.
Scott is kind of right, grades do not matter that much in high school, as long as you graduate from high school you can go to a good Community College (Northern Virginia Community College) and then if you get a G.P.A. of above 3.5 you can basically transfer to any College on the Eastern side of the USA, many people that I know transfered from such a community college to UVA and even Georgetown University. However, most of them worked and payed their own tuition while in the community college.
The main thing is that if you are underage you are under the rules of the people that mantain you, if you truly want to be independent from anyone, once you finish high school and become 18 years old ask for some money from your mom move from your house go to a community college, pay your own tuition, work, pay for your own housing , some good amount of money will comeback if you ask for Fafsa and your taxes. I know many people that have done that so if it is true is kind of hard it is not impossible.
Enough of my ranting, if you really want to go to Otakon, my advise if: cool yourself off, then wait until tomorrow, and talk with your mom after most of your shores are done, then tell her you want to talk with her but do not mention Otakon at all. Ask her what does she expects from you academically. Then after she answer you tell her that you indeed kind of mess up on yout studies, but most importantly be truthfull to her but be respectfull. Tell her that you do not enjoy algebra but you know it is important (because come one, algebra is important !), I know it is hard to change and to stop playing videogames because I myself preffered to finish or contine playing Zelda instead of studing for my A.P.s Keep continue taling to her and also explain her that Otakon is important to you but do not give the reason that you have to go just because you already paid for it but be cool while talking to her, if she understand cool, but if not then compromise with her. I think that if you decide to run from home and got to Otakon without her permision it will jsut get worse.
1) A four-year-old child wants to run into the road in front of your house. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
Likewise, a 14-year-old wants to travel across the country by bus alone. Should the parent have the ability to restrain that child's travel? Of course. It's simply not safe.
2) Let's tackle this from a science/psychology angle. We all know that children are not capable of understanding, processing, and internalizing certain concepts at certain mental and emotional stages in their lives. Take, for instance, Piaget's stages of cognitive development. In early stages, children are subject to operant (classical) conditioning and cannot make self-actualized decisions. It's a brainwashing and peer-pressure game.
By adolescence, Erikson said pre-teens and teens are just discarding symbols for abstract ideas. During the ages of 11-18 (with certain leeway made for early maturation), people still wrestle to define their egos and base their decisions on passion and selfish desire rather than pure logic.
In short, they are scientifically less able to make proper decisions for themselves.
Just a couple of comments and I'm done with this thread.
As a parent, there are two main concerns regarding your children:
1) To protect them; and
2) To enable them to thrive.
If you stick to those two, you'll be pretty darn successful as a parent. You are attempting to apply rights in the United States Constitution to children. However, you are perverting the Constitution to say that it ought to apply to the relationship between a parent and an adult. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
At best, your position is cruel. You are denying a parent's ability to protect their children and to enable their success. It's that simple. Forget your grandstanding, and just think about its conclusion. Under your beliefs, many more children will be hurt. Period. How you can embrace this is beyond me.
Any child psychologist will tell you that a child who does not feel protected is going to suffer some pretty serious damage. This is not a new concept. Stop pretending that kids are little adults. They are not. Their brains are developing in ways that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Knowing that they are protected allows them to develop, and allows them to take risks. Children that do not feel protected are the children that sit in the corner afraid to do or say anything.
I've spent many years professionally protecting children that have been abused and/or neglected. I've also spent many years prosecuting grown children that have had no parenting. Perhaps if you've seen the damage that I've seen, you'd rethink your position.
That's all I've got to say since this thread gives me a headache.
If you're going to use the developmental state of the human mind as criteria for whether or not someone has human rights, then what about mentally disabled people? What about a brain dead person or person with Alzheimers? Do they never get any rights beyond those of a child? What about parrots or monkeys that are actually smarter than some human children? Maybe they need rights beyond those of an animal? There are plenty of grown adults out there who are less mentally ready for the rights and responsibilities of adulthood than some teenagers out there. Should these people have their rights taken away?
Giving full adult constitutional rights to children is obviously crazy. Right to bear arms for children? Not a chance. Right to vote and run for office? Definitely not at least until you are paying some taxes. Some rights and responsibilities can only be granted to people once they are ready for them. Parents also obviously have some rights and responsibilities concerning their children. However, in our current US society I think there are certain inalienable human rights that even a 1 hour-old should have that we are unreasonably denying to people for 18 years.
Onto the other argument: I find denying anything for a C kind of silly myself, and he was not told this was part of the requirement for him to go to Otakon, so pulling it out from under him isn't very fair, and I think at the very least she should pay him back the money for his pre reg, assuming it is non refundable like Anime Boston's.