Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fatherphil · 07-18-2003, 09:50 AM

no problem brig, thanks for your consideration

yguy · 07-18-2003, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by yguy
During the time period in which the child remains uncorrected, again, what is the alternative?

What time period would this be?

Seconds to years.

Quote:

I would think it varies according to the situation, and even in a situation with a time period, the parent has some option other than "putting up with it".

Such as?

Quote:

What does this have to do with putting infants in day care, by the way?

You asked why parents are generally better than paid providers. Remember?

Quote:

To be sure. A parent can always smack the kid around enough, physically or otherwise, to put an end to the problem in the short term.

If this is the parent's solution to dealing with the problem, the child might be better off with a care provider.

I'm sure Andrea Yates' kids would have as well. So what?

Quote:

What are we talking about here, fixing a few lines of computer code? What if the child doesn't WANT to be corrected? You think that ever happens? Obviously it does, so what do you do, intimidate them into behaving?

I don't think the only two choices a parent has are "put up with it" and "intimidate the child".

Again, what do you have in mind as alternatives?

Quote:

Parents are duty bound to put up with a certain degree of irresponsibility in their children.

This is your definition of parenthood. It may not be everyone's.

It certainly doesn't appear to have been Mrs. Yates'.

Quote:

And I doubt that many people could agree on what degree of irresponsibility is all right.

Doesn't matter, since it necessarily involves a degree of irresponsibility greater than zero. If the parent doesn't put up with it, somebody has to. It would be nice for parents if young children could bear the consequences of their own irresponsibility, but we nevertheless deem negligent parents who leave toxic chemicals within their easy reach.

Quote:

Paid providers can cut and run when the going gets tough.

So can parents.

Not morally. A paid provider can do so morally. Thus it appears that a moral parent is a better care provider than one who is paid, having a superior level of commitment.

Quote:

And again, what does this have to do with the topic of babies in day care, unless you wish to discuss the correction of infants?

Feel free to drop me any time.

Queen of Swords · 07-19-2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by yguy
Seconds to years.

Why should a parent have to wait for years?

Such as?

Ask a parent.

You asked why parents are generally better than paid providers. Remember?

I asked what relevance this has to the topic. Remember?

I'm sure Andrea Yates' kids would have as well. So what?

So some kids really might be better off with a care provider than with their parents.

Again, what do you have in mind as alternatives?

I'm sure the alternatives are within you.

It certainly doesn't appear to have been Mrs. Yates'.

What does she have to do with this?

Doesn't matter, since it necessarily involves a degree of irresponsibility greater than zero. If the parent doesn't put up with it, somebody has to.

Why?

Not morally. A paid provider can do so morally.

Not necessarily.

Thus it appears that a moral parent is a better care provider than one who is paid, having a superior level of commitment.

Not all parents are moral, and I don't see how payment removes any moral responsibility.

Feel free to drop me any time.

Ditto.

brighid · 07-21-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Not morally. A paid provider can do so morally. Thus it appears that a moral parent is a better care provider than one who is paid, having a superior level of commitment.

That doesn't appear to stop millions of dead-beat parents from abandoning their biological children, nor does it appear to stop them from abusing those same children in all sorts of vile and absolutely cruel ways.

Brighid

yguy · 07-21-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
That doesn't appear to stop millions of dead-beat parents from abandoning their biological children, nor does it appear to stop them from abusing those same children in all sorts of vile and absolutely cruel ways.

No doubt. How does this have any bearing on the quote you responded to?

brighid · 07-21-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

No doubt. How does this have any bearing on the quote you responded to?

That being a "parent" doesn't make one morally superior to a "paid" care provider.

Brighid

yguy · 07-21-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
That being a "parent" doesn't make one morally superior to a "paid" care provider.

Brighid

Who is this supposed to be news to?

brighid · 07-21-2003, 11:59 AM

No, but I thought perhaps it might be news to you

Here is an interesting article I came across today and it is relevant to this discussion:

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnis...0425sally6.asp

Brighid

yguy · 07-21-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
No, but I thought perhaps it might be news to you

Apparently you don't pay much attention to the posts you respond to.

brighid · 07-21-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Apparently you don't pay much attention to the posts you respond to.

On occassion, just as anyone else, I probably read too quickly and could have had a better reading if I had read more carefully but to assert that I do not pay much attention to the posts I respond to is a rather baseless allegation. We may not agree, or even interpret things similarly, but I do pay attention to the posts I respond to.

Brighid

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2003, 09:50 AM	#331
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	no problem brig, thanks for your consideration

07-19-2003, 02:14 AM	#333
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by yguy Seconds to years. Why should a parent have to wait for years? Such as? Ask a parent. You asked why parents are generally better than paid providers. Remember? I asked what relevance this has to the topic. Remember? I'm sure Andrea Yates' kids would have as well. So what? So some kids really might be better off with a care provider than with their parents. Again, what do you have in mind as alternatives? I'm sure the alternatives are within you. It certainly doesn't appear to have been Mrs. Yates'. What does she have to do with this? Doesn't matter, since it necessarily involves a degree of irresponsibility greater than zero. If the parent doesn't put up with it, somebody has to. Why? Not morally. A paid provider can do so morally. Not necessarily. Thus it appears that a moral parent is a better care provider than one who is paid, having a superior level of commitment. Not all parents are moral, and I don't see how payment removes any moral responsibility. Feel free to drop me any time. Ditto.

07-21-2003, 11:59 AM	#338
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	No, but I thought perhaps it might be news to you Here is an interesting article I came across today and it is relevant to this discussion: http://www.post-gazette.com/columnis...0425sally6.asp Brighid

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.