Frustrated Mom Creates ‘Ignore No More’ App To Get Teen Kids To Return Calls

[40hz]

[/b]
40hz: I agree with enough of what you've said that I think the disagreement hinges upon our opinions of exactly how draconian this app is, or could be.  In my opinion, not so much.  Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

-Edvard (August 19, 2014, 04:17 AM)

Absolutely. We can always disagree and still remain respected friends. It'd be a very dull world if we all agreed 100% on everything.

And that's why we (ideally) will always have our Renegade(s). They make sure things don't get too dull on that score.

[wraith808]

Because I have a deeper question: Why so?

Just what is it that makes someone who has done something they can claim very little (if any) direct credit for (i.e. biologically reproduce) feel they are automatically and absolutely qualified to raise a kid? There's this weird bit of knee-jerk magical logic that says "mother/father knows best." Even when it's quite obvious that approximately half of them do not.

How does that work?

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 06:01 AM)

Are they responsible if the child does something wrong?  (Rhetorical question there... because the answer is yes, whether it is in the eyes of the public and/or legally).

So responsibility begets authority.  That's just how it works.  If you're going to hold the parent responsible if the child drives at age 13, then the parent has the authority to discipline and tell the child that he can't do this, and then take steps to make it so.  You can't have it both ways.

[40hz]

So responsibility begets authority.  That's just how it works.

-wraith808 (August 19, 2014, 09:15 AM)

It think what you're actually saying is that legal liability grants legal authority? Well...ok...mostly.

But that's not the question I was asking. I was wondering just what it is about the act of biological procreation that magically grants unassailable wisdom and the absolute knowing "what's best" for the living product of one's own sexual intercourse?

Would-be adoptive parents are screened and have their backgrounds checked. Some even are made to attend classes. But drop your own little darlin' and shazzaam! you automatically are held to "just know" how to raise her/him. Why is that? Or is it just that I can't see the 'unicorns and glitter' all those biological parents can see?

When Ren said earlier that:

But it's not up to you or me to determine when other people's children are ready to assume any given right or responsibility -- that is purely the domain of the parent. Not you. Not me. Not the state. Not media pundits. Parents. Only. Exclusively.

My question is, exactly what makes natural parents automatically qualified to make such a decision. Because watching the parents in my decidedly upscale neck of the woods, I can assure you that a good many aren't much up to the task. A point with which many apparently agree considering the substantial number of them that farm out as much child rearing as possible to the school system, daycare providers, private nannies, and social activity groups.

So again:

If: "Parents. Only. Exclusively." :then: Why so? 

 

[wraith808]

No... I meant responsibility.  It's much more than liability.  You spend X years and Y amount of money and an inestimable amount of blood, sweat, and tears on your progeny.  Now, personally, I think the nature of creating offspring creates a catch-22 in the fact that it is very easy to have a child, but not so much to raise one.  But even taking that out of the equation, until/unless you give away that responsibility, you're responsible.  And liable.

[40hz]

Now, personally, I think the nature of creating offspring creates a catch-22 in the fact that it is very easy to have a child, but not so much to raise one.

-wraith808 (August 19, 2014, 12:47 PM)

I think we can all agree with you on that.

The big problem is that the law (and most of our social institutions) make themselves wilfully blind on that point.

There's an assumption that "parents just know" what's best for their children. And that includes the right to ignore prenatal health considerations, the right to refuse to have a child vaccinated, the right to ignore proper nutrition (so long as you don't starve them to death), and the right to dump all your hangups and phobias on their innocent heads. Why? Because "you're the parent!" It's the law. It's the way things are. And it says so in holy writ...

So again, just what special magic makes a person automatically qualified to raise a child just by virtue of their contributing an egg or sperm cell to the equation?

[tomos]

^ I get a sense this is leading somewhere?

Could it be plans to introduce surveillance of the parents to ensure that they do what you, or the government, or whoever, want and think correct?  

You're railing against things that I'm not reading in this thread. No one here said they're 'automatically qualified' (or did I miss something?).

If: "Parents. Only. Exclusively." :then: Why so?

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 12:37 PM)

Related:
# we all know that the state does intrude there occasionally, with mixed results.
# society has largely lost it's traditional structure where an extended family and close-knit community could compensate for parents' lack of experience.

I believe that most people at some level love their parents (even if they have reason to hate them too).

[wraith808]

So again, just what special magic makes a person automatically qualified to raise a child just by virtue of their contributing an egg or sperm cell to the equation?

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 01:43 PM)

What special magic makes the state capable?  What special magic makes *anyone* capable?

It's at least a start if you can include love in the equation, which is more likely than if you go the other way.

So what are you arguing?  

[Stoic Joker]

^ I get a sense this is leading somewhere?

-tomos (August 19, 2014, 02:00 PM)

Me too. *Shrug* ...The current system has been in place for x million years and somehow the species has managed to survive so... What alternating is being proposed? Or is this just one of those thought experiments designed to circuitously demonstrate just how nihilistically hosed we really in the grand scheme of things?

[40hz]

Dunno. You see it or you don't. Or maybe it's just me? That seems to be the consensus, so I think I'm gonna drop it before it starts going in circles.

Onward!

[superboyac]

I love this thread, thanks all.

When it comes to this subject, I find myself agreeing with Louie in one of the episodes, where he says something like...I just want to be able to raise my girls so they are capable of going to a city, finding a job, and settling down into a decent job and lifestyle.

[tomos]

Dunno. You see it or you don't. Or maybe it's just me? That seems to be the consensus, so I think I'm gonna drop it before it starts going in circles.

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 03:48 PM)

if we were having this conversation in a pub, you would have to buy at least the next two rounds

[40hz]

Dunno. You see it or you don't. Or maybe it's just me? That seems to be the consensus, so I think I'm gonna drop it before it starts going in circles.

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 03:48 PM)

if we were having this conversation in a pub, you would have to buy at least the next two rounds

-tomos (August 19, 2014, 04:51 PM)

If I were sitting in a pub, I wouldn't be having this conversation.  

(I'm also pretty good about buying a round or two either way.)

[Renegade]

So again, just what special magic makes a person automatically qualified to raise a child just by virtue of their contributing an egg or sperm cell to the equation?

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 01:43 PM)

What special magic makes the state capable?  What special magic makes *anyone* capable?

It's at least a start if you can include love in the equation, which is more likely than if you go the other way.

So what are you arguing?  

-wraith808 (August 19, 2014, 02:01 PM)

^ This.

@40hz - I'm not sure what you're implying, but you seem to be implying that being the state somehow "magically grants unassailable wisdom and the absolute knowing "what's best" for the living product of" other people's sexual intercourse. (That's overly harsh as I said basically that about parents & children - the strawman is just for dramatic effect. )

You go on about the state here:

But we do! All the time. You don't drive until a certain age. You can't be out on certain nights of the week after a certain hour if you're under a certain age. You can't go to certain entertainments or watch certain films or play certain games until you reach what somebody else has determined is an "appropriate" age. You become eligible for military service at a given age regardless of how 'ready' your parent feels you are. You attend school on certain days at certain hours or face prosecution for truancy - along with your parents in some cases. There are so-called "juvenile courts" for dealing with seriously "troubled children." And laws that don't take full effect until you are no longer deemed a minor. None of these are based on a parent's consent or determination of their offspring's maturity. Schools look for signs of physical and emotional abuse - and are required by law to report any suspicions of same to the state's "child & family" authorities for investigation and possible legal action. And where does rearing and disciplining cross the line into the realm of abuse? The state authorities get the final word on that one.

-40hz (August 19, 2014, 06:01 AM)

But before even getting to the stage of assigning any right of the state to interfere in the raising of children, I would first ask what magical pixie dust gives the state any right to anything the state claims at all? Consent of the governed? How about when people don't consent? I don't admit any legitimacy or authority for the state at all, so that ends that for me. But that's probably a tangent best left alone.

If we want to simply deal in "what is", it is the case that "parents are", and parents are the natural guardians of their children.

If anyone actually does want to talk about the state and children... hehehe... reality is grim.

Children five times more likely to die from physical abuse and eleven times more likely to be sexually abused under state “child protection” care

America's dead children and Child Protective Services

Child Protective Services (CPS) – a Broken and Flawed System

Foster Homes: Where Good Kids Go To Die (Includes a good list of references.)

Some statistics revealed in the video show that foster kids are:

• 7-8 times more likely to be abused
• more likely to end up homeless with nearly half becoming homeless at the age of 18
• 3 times more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs
• 7 times more likely to develop an eating disorder
• more likely to have PTSD than veterans of war and less likely to recover from that PTSD
• more likely to become pregnant as a teenager
• 20% more likely to be arrested
• 6 times more likely to die

than if they stayed in an abusive household.

Carlos Morales is a former CPS investigator turned whistleblower. There are a good number of interviews & whatnot with him out there where he goes through just how bad CPS is.

The same can be found with people screaming about the state kidnapping children in the UK.

Again, what magical pixie dust makes the state more capable than parents? Or maybe it was an ogre club...

[40hz]

^Didn't say it was more qualified. Just said it intervenes. Routinely. With the blessings of many of the parents more often than not. Largely because many parents won't trust themselves or their peers to raise kids responsibly. I'm not advocating for government involvement. I'm just responding to the "nobody/ever/period" part of an earlier comment of yours by me saying "Fine. But unfortunately, that's not how it works in practice."

Anyway, I'm done with the topic. Feelings are running a little too high - and I've pretty much said all I have to say about it already. So I'll shut up and let some other people talk for a change.  NFNF 

[app103]

• 7-8 times more likely to be abused
• more likely to end up homeless with nearly half becoming homeless at the age of 18
• 3 times more likely to be put on psychotropic drugs
• 7 times more likely to develop an eating disorder
• more likely to have PTSD than veterans of war and less likely to recover from that PTSD
• more likely to become pregnant as a teenager
• 20% more likely to be arrested
• 6 times more likely to die

-Renegade (August 19, 2014, 05:09 PM)

It may be anecdotal, but I'll vouch for the truthfulness in this. 

But getting back to what qualifies parents to raise their kids, I have to ask what qualifies dogs to care for their own puppies and cats to care for their own kittens, for that matter?

[Deozaan]

I have to ask what qualifies dogs to care for their own puppies and cats to care for their own kittens, for that matter?

-app103 (August 20, 2014, 05:21 AM)

Nothing! That's why we (usually) separate them shortly after birth!

The above was purely meant to be humorous and doesn't reflect my true opinion on the matter.

[TaoPhoenix]

I saw this from Mouser's newsletter.

I'm more worried that it's one more "But ... but .... mommy needs to talk to her kids!"
But then nastier types like cops get old of this, and Bad Things Happen.