The Glade 4.0

Yes I do, two of them. Good effort at dismissing my post with an ad hominem, though.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yeah, little presumptuous there eh?

I was rather hoping this was the answer to that question.

Not having kids is an ad hominem?

I'll keep that in mind. This isn't hellfire, so I'll just say that its been my experience that the attitude you're espousing is far more common among non-parents than people raising children full time.

Trust. But Verify.

An ad hominem is exactly what you are using. You clarified it perfectly yourself. When you say that my circumstances are what lead me to make my statement, and therefore it's less/not valid, it's an ad hominem. Your comment had everything to do with me, and not what I stated. You're showing poor logic. I don't know what Hellfire has to do with it.

Here's the interesting part: I'm raising my kids full time; from what you've stated on the forum, you're not. According to your logic, you should agree with me.

In my experience, parents who don't/won't/can't spend the time with their children to instill the proper values in them, or those who are afraid that something terrible will happen to their kids because they can't be with them 24/7 tend to lean on other means (tech for one) to make up for it. Building the levels of trust needed takes time, energy, confidence and consistency. If one of those elements are missing, parents get scared that they aren't "doing it right" - hell even if it's all there, parents get scared.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Wrong again. Excepting for 2 months in the summer, I AM raising my daughter full time.

Now an ad hominem attack would have been if I had said "your argument is invalid because of X" -- something I DIDN'T state, nor would you find me doing so. I simply asked if you had kids.

As for the other, parents whose children have been caught in some misdeed have to do additional checking. In my particular case, my 11 year old was posting videos to Youtube surreptitiously. (mercifully nothing inappropriate but it was outside the established rules and she did so by getting up at 3 AM, well after she should have been asleep)

So your statement about allowing kids to freedom lead me to one of the following conclusions:
a) you have no children
b) you have children and they have NEVER been caught in any wrongdoing that would cause you want to check on their veracity
c) you have children, they lie to you, but you continue to trust blindly in the name of their freedom

Since c) would imply you're far more trusting than your other statements on the board would imply, and b) implies a breed of alien child I've yet to experience I went with a).

How I could be wrong (not to mention "again" WTF?) about the fact that you stated:

Typically there are ~180 instructional days in the school year. There are 365 days a year. That didn't sound like full time to me, you may feel differently.


Yup, nobody is seeing through that one.
No, to make use of the ad hominem logical fallacy you do not have to state: "your argument is invalid because of X"
There was no point to your statement other than to diminish my post. Implying I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have kids. Further reinforcing this fact is that you added that "non-parents" are more likely to have the "attitude" that children should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that mutual trust is more important than making sure every incidence of poor decision making by the child is discovered. Why would you think that? What part of being a "non-parent" could cause that attitude?



Apparently you think in terms of false dilemmas. Obviously there are other possibilities. Perhaps I really do believe what I stated. Perhaps my children trust that I will find out about things because the truth always comes out. Maybe they would rather keep my trust and their privileges by being truthful. Perhaps they've even made mistakes and learned from them and instead of secretly monitoring them, thereby fostering distrust in a relationship that should be built on trust, I have allowed them to re-build the trust that was lost.

I guess its just easier to assume things.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes, because I don't care for her during Non-school days, because it makes SENSE to fly to her El Paso from KY every weekend, long or otherwise. Her school district closed down on June 1 this year. School Starts up again August 10. I AM a single parent and she stays with me throughout the year. Her mother moved to El Paso, TX which is where my daughter spends her summer.

There is no contradiction here. You're actually going to challenge me on details of my own life?

As for the second, you're the one assuming that I attacked you. I didn't.
I'm quite sorry you feel hurt or felt your position was undermined by my asking if you had kids. Would that do for an apology or do you want me to send you flowers?

Then again, people tend to see in others what they themselves are. YMMV.

You simply made a post that is based on unsound logic, predicated on an assumption. If it wasn't intended to undermine my statement, then it was pointless as well.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Riov, you didn't simply ask if Vindi had children, you said "You don't have kids, do you?" Which, when phrased like that, almost always is meant as a smart-ass remark from someone who thinks they already know the answer to the question....which is why they phrase it in the form of more of a statement.
If you were seriously asking him a question, you would have said something more like "Do you have children?"

Also, believe it or not, you're parenting style may not be what works for someone elses kids. Shocking, I know, but true. Every child is different and every kid has different needs in regard to structure, discipline, and affection. Yes, there actually *are* kids that don't need to be placed in a protective bubble. I prefer raising my child by thoroughly educating him early and giving him enough leash to show him that I trust him. Does he have room to make mistakes? Absolutely. If he doesn't make mistakes, how will he learn? I'm not going to be there to nanny him his whole life...my job is to prepare him for adulthood and the sooner, the better. I don't make temptations readily available for him, (we do have rules), but I don't completely take away all temptations either...I expect him to practice using his own judgement and dealing with his own conscience and so far its working great. My son has come to me on several occasions, in tears, confessing his "crimes", most of which were extremely miniscule and I had to try not to laugh...a couple of the things he confessed were a little more serious, but he is learning from his mistakes through natural consequences...a skill he would not be learning were I to police his every activity.
It's not my job as a parent to protect my child from every evil, temptation, or boogeyman. It's my job to keep him safe, yes, but it's also my job to teach him to deal with evils, temptations and boogeymen on his own and I have been doing that since he was 4.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Surely this thread in the Tech forum has run its course, its question asked and answered. Perhaps more dispute, criticism, and dissent in parenting styles can be discussed in Hellfire?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Please don't tarnish this forum, it's my favorite...

If the discussion continues this thread will be on track for a move. Just letting you all know.

Unless you lock people out of the bios and disable secondary booting. Yeah you can crack the case and reset the CMOS, but most teenagers don't know how to do that.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"