LogFAQs > #913473796

Jen0125 posted...

These aren't even comparable. You don't generally lock a child in their room to ground them. You just tell them to sit in there. If you're really holding an adult hostage that is kidnapping.

So you're saying that your idea of being grounded is being told to just stay in your room, but if you just randomly decide to wander out wherever you feel like going, up to and including leaving the house, then parents should take absolutely no action to react to you in any way, or punish you for defying your previous punishment? And that parents have zero right to ever impede or restrict their children's rights to go wherever they choose?

Or would you implicitly accept that parents have the right to restrict the behaviors and movement for their own good? Because doing so absolutely falls into the category for forced coercion if you attempt to do the exact same thing to an adult. Even grabbing a child as he attempts to run directly into traffic could technically count as an assault charge if you do it to an adult and they object to your doing so.

By the logic of your own flawed analogy, we literally cannot apply different standards to adults and children, and what would be a crime when applied to adults is by definition a crime when applied to children.

It's almost as if we treat children like children, and not just short adults. What an amazing concept!



Jen0125 posted...

If you are actually not allowing your child to ever leave the house or you're locking them in their room for prolonged periods of time that can be abusive.

Nearly every parenting behavior ever practiced by humans - even ones parents today think are perfectly acceptable and enlightened - can be abusive if practiced to excess. But having the potential for abuse doesn't automatically equate to being abuse. That's where you start falling into the slippery slope fallacy.

---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family