bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
the flipside of "you have no right to decide for your children REEEEEEEEE" no one admits is that this replaces parents who in the _overwhelming majority_ of cases will instinctually protect their offspring vs. the weaponized bullshit state which is in the best case scenario interested in cheap worker drones of the future - more likely in more sinister plots involving meat grinder wars and the like.
🇳🇱
@bonifartius Have to disagree.. No one is saying the "weaponized bullshit state" should control your children in place of parents... People are suggesting (usually) that children have a fundemental right to self-determination and bodily autonomy... on this I agree.
@freemo
i'll admit my post is a verging on rant :)
the rules for this self-determination and bodily autonomy are de facto decided by the state. as soon as ideas are declared law it will be applied by force, no matter how outlandish those ideas might be.
i won't argue that there are no evil people abusing their children. those cases are covered by self-defense (of others).
my point is that now it's not about preventing people beating or otherwise abusing their children anymore.
it's now about _coercing_ parents into _allowing_ their children to do things, some with with permanent consequences they can't even fully comprehend. which is _exactly_ what parents are supposed to prevent.
that's why it's generally assumed that children can't sign contracts, etc. their self-determination and bodily autonomy is limited to protect them from fucking up their lives. it should be limited by the parents because it's a very reasonable assumption that in general parents are those with a genuine interest in having the best long-term outcome for their offspring. the ideas about _how_ might differ of course. the alternative is socialism, the removal of cultural and ideological differences.
finally, a state always is weaponized by those in control of it. it is the very purpose of having a state after all :)
Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh. As someone who owned his first company, was living alone, and had his first home all by the age of 15 I usually find this whole "children dont have the maturity to decide for themselves" nonsense as very abusive and invalid.
@freemo no harm done!
it's sometimes a bit complicated to accurately put my ideas into proper english, especially when it's getting a bit late here (i'm certainly too tired to type up an answer for all points :)
i had a friend who moved out with 16 which was the right thing for him. if i'd moved out with 16 it would've been a garbage-fire :)
Im all for children leaning on their parents for growth. But in the end just saying, its the child who has to live with the consequences, not the adult.
I had a very loving and well meaning parent, and she caused a LOT of harm trying to control everything, all with good intentions.
Part of the reason is i refused to accept any authority over myself. I knew I was capable and would decide what was right regardless of how much i might have had to fight my mother. This included simply leaving the home as early as 10 years old. Though when i was younger I could only legally stay away for so long.
@bonifartius
> i’ll admit my post is a verging on rant :)
No worries there.
> the rules for this self-determination and bodily autonomy are de facto decided by the state. as soon as ideas are declared law it will be applied by force, no matter how outlandish those ideas might be.
Those same rules that give the right to bodily autonomy? I mean if you dont like that the state grants you authority to do what you like with your own body, so much so you think that right should belong to parents and not the state... ok.. so you are willing to give over all your rights to your parents as well? You dont want the right to self-determination the state has granted you, just as you feel it shouldnt grant such rights to children?
> i won’t argue that there are no evil people abusing their children. those cases are covered by self-defense (of others).
It has absolutely nothing to do with if parents are evil or not. It has to do with the fact that you dont own your childrends bodies. It is their bodies and just as you have the right to do what you wish with your body so should they have the right to do what they wish with theirs.
If you as an adult make a well intentioned decision that causes harm it is your child who has to suffer a lifetime from your bad decision, not you, as a parent you will die long before their suffering ends... So if they are the ones to deal with the suffering of a decision then they should be the ones who make that decision. Your good intentions wont change their suffering.
> it’s now about coercing parents into allowing their children to do things, some with with permanent consequences they can’t even fully comprehend. which is exactly what parents are supposed to prevent.
As it should be... A parent should have **no** right to be a dictator over a childs own body. To do so, even with good intent, if that good intent is contrary to what the child wants, is child abuse as far as I'm concerned. It is not possible to be a good, non abusive, parent and violate your childs own self determination with their own body.
> that’s why it’s generally assumed that children can’t sign contracts, etc. their self-determination and bodily autonomy is limited to protect them from fucking up their lives. it should be limited by the parents because it’s a very reasonable assumption that in general parents are those with a genuine interest in having the best long-term outcome for their offspring. the ideas about how might differ of course. the alternative is socialism, the removal of cultural and ideological differences.
Signing contracts isnt bodily autonomy.. false equivelance. Your body is yours, and the consequences are yours. Contracts involve other people and is a different situation entierly.
> finally, a state always is weaponized by those in control of it. it is the very purpose of having a state after all :)
As you know I am generally against the state exerting power.. but you are asking for hte opposite... you are asking for a state to exert power to give you (a parent) control over another human being.. If there were no state and no power by default you'd have no power over your child. So what you are complaining about is actually the state refusing to step in and act on your behalf.. you are upset at a lack of state power, the idea that the state may not allow you to abuse your child legally by forcing your will over them..
I mean its common, so it is what it is I suppose... but very confusing that you are framing it the way you are when its literally the opposite.