My Promise To My Children

[Rami Rustom]

i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.

> My Promise To My Children
> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
> your friend second. I will stalk you, flip out on you, lecture you,
> drive you insane, be your worst nightmare and hunt you down like
> a bloodhound when I have to, because I love you. When you
> understand that, I will know you have become a responsible adult.
> You will never find anyone else in your life who loves, prays,
> cares and worries about you more than I do. If you don't
> mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life,
> I am not doing my job properly.

explain everything wrong with this.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

On Sep 8, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>
>> My Promise To My Children
>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>> your friend second.
>> I will stalk you, flip out on you, lecture you,
>> drive you insane, be your worst nightmare and hunt you down like
>> a bloodhound when I have to, because I love you.
>

> explain everything wrong with this.

The person is saying, "I will always treat this other person as if I have power over them and as if I have the right to use force, rather than persuasion, to make them act the way I think best." That's a threat to violate the other person's individual rights, to start with. It also doesn't address error correction - what if the person doing the threatening is wrong about the issue at hand (aside from being wrong to threaten to initiate violence in the first place)?

>> When you
>> understand that, I will know you have become a responsible adult.

The phrase "responsible adult" implies that children are irresponsible. The sentence also assumes that parent knows what responsibility is, and says that "understanding" (really "accepting") that the parent's irrational, violent behavior is motivated by love (!) is necessary and sufficient to becoming one of these "responsible adults". I guess this is a good example of an anti-rational meme because it does repeat itself if the child accepts it, because then they will act that way towards their children.

>> You will never find anyone else in your life who loves, prays,
>> cares and worries about you more than I do.

Well, if the parent's idea of love is the violence threatened above, maybe it's good that no one will ever do it more. But for argument's sake, let's stipulate that having someone to do this "loving, praying, caring, and worrying" for us is a good thing. Even if that's so, why should the parent be the person who does this the most in the child's lifetime? Shouldn't they wish that the child will find someone who does it even more?

>> If you don't
>> mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life,
>> I am not doing my job properly.

A power hungry person saying that they are forcing someone else to do something they don't like, but it's for their own good. How horrible it is that people think like this.

[Rami Rustom]

On Sep 8, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> you shouldn't say "everything" because then if someone lists one flaw it kinda implies they think there aren't others, unless they also waste time denying that. it's a bad request.

k


>
>
> a flaw is it doesn't explain the "when I have to". it justifies flipping out, stalking, driving insane, being a "worst nightmare", etc, by the parenting "hav[ing] to" and makes no effort to say why the parent has to or what good will result.
>
> your turn rami. post 5 flaws.

k

Quoting from the “My Promise To My Children” from above:
>
> I will always be your parent first and your friend second. I will stalk you,

stalk means (m-w) 3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment

i think no kid would want to be harassed. so this parent is saying he will act against the will of his child.


> flip out on you,

‘flip out’ (urbandictionary.com) To panic, become frustrated or angry; to react irrationally to an event

panicing is not helpful. getting frustrated or angry is also not helpful. reacting irrationally is harmful — in the sense that it fails to solve whatever problem the parent thinks there is. it also fails to solve any problem that the child might have.


> lecture you,

lecturing means refusing to consider that one might be wrong about his ideas that he’s declaring to someone else. so the parent is refusing to consider the possibility that the child is right. so when parent is in lecture mode, and if he’s mistaken, then he won’t find out about his mistake, and child will suffer for it.


skipping to later in the quote…

> when I have to, because I love you.

so if the parent didn’t love him, then what? i wonder… maybe no love and a little responsibility (like, even just the amount that the law requires) is waaaaaay better than this parent’s love which comes with stalking, flipping out, lecturing, driving child insane, being his worst nightmare, hunting child down like a bloodhound.

> When you understand that, I will know you have become a responsible adult. You will never find anyone else in your life who loves, prays, cares and worries about you more than I do. If you don’t mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life, I am not doing my job properly.

Hate? So this parent’s conception of somebody becoming a responsible adult includes hating the person that helped him become a responsible adult. So this parent uses the false logic of the-means-justifies-the-ends.

-- Rami Rustom
ramirustom.com

[LP]

nothing! rofl!

[Justin Mallone]

On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>
>> My Promise To My Children
>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>> your friend second.

Embraces parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child.

>> I will stalk you,

Advocates stalking.

>> flip out on you,

Advocates anger/emotionalism.

>> lecture you,

Advocates authoritarian approach to learning.

>> drive you insane,

Advocates severely troubling child as good and casually uses mental illness language.

>> be your worst nightmare

Advocates doing stuff to child that they actively and severely dislike.

>> and hunt you down like
>> a bloodhound

FYI murderous boyfriends say similar things:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/sources-police-heard-threats-made-murder-suspect-jason-bohn-queens-woman-found-dead-apartment-article-1.1103591

> “I’ll dedicate my life to hunting you down like a dog in the streets.”

>> when I have to,

As Elliot pointed out, advocates all this bad stuff and doesn't even define what situations it applies to.

>> because I love you.

This is what I thought was the most interesting. It claims to be acting out of love for child but takes absolutely no account of child's actual preferences and actively advocates doing things that it knows will upset the child. It's basically advocating the view "Love is inflicting unwanted suffering on those who you love."

>> When you
>> understand that, I will know you have become a responsible adult.

Defines becoming a responsible adult as agreeing with these terrible views.

>> You will never find anyone else in your life who loves,

As another poster pointed out, if this is love...

>> prays,

If the child is not religious, will they value this? Does the parent care?

>> cares

In what sense is advocacy of doing stuff that the parent knows the child will dislike compatible with caring?

>> and worries

Worrying is not a good lifestyle, nor does it help anybody (parent or child).

>> about you more than I do. If you don't
>> mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life,
>> I am not doing my job properly.

Again celebrating doing stuff to child they actively dislike as some sort of great thing.

> explain everything wrong with this.

I can't cuz there's infinitely many ways to criticize it. I hope I gave it a good rolling start though!

[Lulie Tanett]

On Sep 8, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>
>> My Promise To My Children
>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>> your friend second. I will stalk you, flip out on you, lecture you,
>> drive you insane, be your worst nightmare and hunt you down like
>> a bloodhound when I have to, because I love you. When you
>> understand that, I will know you have become a responsible adult.
>> You will never find anyone else in your life who loves, prays,
>> cares and worries about you more than I do. If you don't
>> mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life,
>> I am not doing my job properly.

This is similar to when couples say if you don't fight at all then something is wrong.

Both have the message: Suffering is not just OK, not just inevitable, but good.

Both say: You're not doing it right if you don't accept suffering and conflict. You're childish, or naive, or it's not true love because if he loved you he'd get mad.

Why? Because this is an important step to accepting anti-rational memes. Make the bad, the problematic acceptable to people, OK or even good, and what defences do they have left to criticise with?

This piece of writing is also designed to justify terrible things they do to their children. They detect their behaviour is wrong/horrible in some way (or there is a risk that they will detect it), but they must believe that it isn't. So they glory in saying they do these things.

It also contains a false view about learning. "If you don't mutter under your breath "I hate you" at least once in your life, I am not doing my job properly." This means: For someone to learn to "become a responsible adult", they need to be forced.

--
Lulie Tanett

[Lulie Tanett]

On 1 May 2014, at 01:03, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
>> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>>
>>> My Promise To My Children
>>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>>> your friend second.
>
> Embraces parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child.

Can you explain how this line says that?

It says that being a friend contradicts some parts of being a parent, and that they prioritise the parent role in situations where they conflict.
(Combined with the rest of the post, it's saying that being a parent means doing some things that would be deeply unpleasant and that you would not do to friends.)

If anything, the OP is saying that the way to help learning is to not be a friend and to have a parent role instead.

>>> I will stalk you,
>
> Advocates stalking.

They would say: Yes, usually stalking is bad. But parents have responsibilities towards their children, to make sure that they aren't doing anything harmful to themselves or others. If they don't know what their children is doing, they can't fulfil this responsibility, and they might be being neglectful.

This is a situation where the idea 'stalking is bad' appears to contradict the idea 'don't be neglectful'.

Saying 'advocating stalking is bad' doesn't actually explain the mistake here -- everyone knows stalking is bad; the question is why it doesn't contradict this other thing that everyone knows is bad.

>>> flip out on you,
>
> Advocates anger/emotionalism.

Similar thing here: They think that flipping out *accomplishes something*. Just saying it's anger/emotionalism and therefore bad doesn't explain the problem.

And the explanation isn't trivial. Which of these is it?:
- it doesn't accomplish anything (why does it appear effective to them?)
- it doesn't accomplish what they think it accomplishes
- there are better ways of accomplishing the thing they want to accomplish
- the thing they want to accomplish is bad
- the whole idea of having an agenda for children (wanting to accomplish a particular effect on them) is bad
- being angry/emotional is so bad that it overrides any benefit
etc.

Also it's not even necessarily anger/emotional. Maybe they think the act of flipping out is a good *tactic*, like to make their kids take them seriously.

>>> lecture you,
>
> Advocates authoritarian approach to learning.
>
>>> drive you insane,
>
> Advocates severely troubling child as good and casually uses mental illness language.
>
>>> be your worst nightmare
>
> Advocates doing stuff to child that they actively and severely dislike.
>
>>> and hunt you down like
>>> a bloodhound
>
> FYI murderous boyfriends say similar things:
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/sources-police-heard-threats-made-murder-suspect-jason-bohn-queens-woman-found-dead-apartment-article-1.1103591
>
>> "I'll dedicate my life to hunting you down like a dog in the streets."
>
>>> when I have to,
>
> As Elliot pointed out, advocates all this bad stuff and doesn't even define what situations it applies to.
>
>>> because I love you.
>
> This is what I thought was the most interesting. It claims to be acting out of love for child but takes absolutely no account of child's actual preferences and actively advocates doing things that it knows will upset the child. It's basically advocating the view "Love is inflicting unwanted suffering on those who you love."

I think they'd say "love means doing 'what is best' for the person you love".

Imagine this attitude applied to romantic relationships. It would be terrible slavery and abuse.

--
Lulie Tanett

[Justin Mallone]

On May 4, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Lulie Tanett <lu...@lulie.org> wrote:

>
> On 1 May 2014, at 01:03, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
>>> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>>>
>>>> My Promise To My Children
>>>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>>>> your friend second.
>>
>> Embraces parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child.
>
> Can you explain how this line says that?
> It says that being a friend contradicts some parts of being a parent, and that they prioritise the parent role in situations where they conflict.
> (Combined with the rest of the post, it's saying that being a parent means doing some things that would be deeply unpleasant and that you would not do to friends.)
>
> If anything, the OP is saying that the way to help learning is to not be a friend and to have a parent role instead.

Now that you point it out, I agree my statement wasn't very good. Probably best statement is something like "Embraces parental role over permissive parenting."

There's lots of stuff in the culture about how you can't be your child's friend, you need to be parent. By this people mean setting "firm boundaries" on what kid can do, making them do homework, restricting certain activities, etc.

Parents are often tempted to do at least some of the things that people consider being more like kid's "friend." Lots of them do actually do some of these things.

Here is a website where a parent advocates not being friend:

https://www.modernmom.com/bd0adc74-3b35-11e3-be8a-bc764e04a41e.html

> But when I asked some mom friends for their thoughts, I was surprised at how many disagreed with me. They want to be their child’s friend. I was told that if I was friends with my child, they would tell me everything. Other said they wanted to be a “cool” mom, and that they wanted their child’s friends to think they were “cool."
>
> I asked what makes a "cool" mom, and my friends all said the same thing: not many rules (like staying up late watching TV, playing video games, computer, cell phone and texting without any rules or consequences for breaking those rules), not being “overprotective, " letting their child go to the house of a friend they don’t know, letting them hang out at the mall at quite young ages (because everyone else is), letting them have a Facebook account before they are 13.
>
> I could go on and on... and I realized I must be in the minority, because to me it sounded like a cool parent is a parent that lets their child run their house. Apparently cool parent doesn't want to disappoint their child or deal with conflict and has a hard time saying no or setting limits.

So this is basically permissive parenting. Notice all the "letting." It's passive.
It's not actively trying to help child achieve what they value, so it's not embracing parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child, exactly. It's more like embracing strong parental role over alternative of getting a bit less in the way of child's goals.

>>>> I will stalk you,
>>
>> Advocates stalking.
>
> They would say: Yes, usually stalking is bad. But parents have responsibilities towards their children, to make sure that they aren't doing anything harmful to themselves or others. If they don't know what their children is doing, they can't fulfil this responsibility, and they might be being neglectful.
>
> This is a situation where the idea 'stalking is bad' appears to contradict the idea 'don't be neglectful'.
>
> Saying 'advocating stalking is bad' doesn't actually explain the mistake here -- everyone knows stalking is bad; the question is why it doesn't contradict this other thing that everyone knows is bad.

I actually think that the way people typically think about it, being very worried/concerned parent and doing stuff consistent with that is considered *not stalking at all.* Their misconception is that stalking is something lovers do.

So the use of stalk in something like the above is *intended* as like, inexact, hyperbole, something like that, I think.

But lots of the *actual* behaviors can be the same. It is advocating those *behaviors*. I think the behaviors are immoral in either romance or parenting context and so I take statement as stalking advocacy, and think it is worth pointing out what it is.

You are right that there is more to say about critting stalking type behaviors.

One thing I think is important is getting across that doing unwanted stuff to other people is really immoral even if you think you have good reasons. You could be wrong about those reasons. Also, if you have good reasons to engage in behavior, why can't you explain them to kid persuasively?

I think one thing people think is that there is special knowledge of being a parent that is incommunicable if you are not a parent and that justifies stuff like being super worried and stalkery. But where does this special parental knowledge come from? And how do you explain why some parents don't engage in these kinda behaviors while others do? If they are all parents, and if being parent is what makes the different, why do some get the stalkery knowledge and others don't?

If parent thinks it is cuz they are extra virtuous and care more, how would they distinguish that from claim of romantic relationship stalker or physically abusive stalker who says they act like they do cuz they love other person so much? And are there other areas of life they can identify where the "do unwanted stuff to unwilling victims" approach seems compatible with being *extra moral?* If not, do they think that's interesting at all? Worth reflecting on?

Another crit is that engaging in stalkery behavior is counterproductive. Like if you try and monitor kid's every move, they will just make extra efforts to evade you and then if something does happen to them, you won't be able to get ahold of them (or them you) and then harm will result. Or they will just ignore your attempts at contacting them even if this one time you have something really important to tell them (kind of a boy who cried wolf type thing).

>>>> flip out on you,
>>
>> Advocates anger/emotionalism.
>
> Similar thing here: They think that flipping out *accomplishes something*. Just saying it's anger/emotionalism and therefore bad doesn't explain the problem.
>
> And the explanation isn't trivial. Which of these is it?:
> - it doesn't accomplish anything (why does it appear effective to them?)

Well sometimes it can like, bully a kid with a somewhat broken spirit into doing stuff. So then you have to get into why it's bad to be emotionally manipulative.

> - it doesn't accomplish what they think it accomplishes
> - there are better ways of accomplishing the thing they want to accomplish
> - the thing they want to accomplish is bad
> - the whole idea of having an agenda for children (wanting to accomplish a particular effect on them) is bad
> - being angry/emotional is so bad that it overrides any benefit
> etc.
>
> Also it's not even necessarily anger/emotional. Maybe they think the act of flipping out is a good *tactic*, like to make their kids take them seriously.

I dunno about tactic interpretation. Like I think maybe some people do that but I would guess it is not common. The memey emotions associated with "flipping out" are a bit of an end in themselves in lots of cases, I think. Like, feeling them is an indication of being Good in the minds of people. So I think a key point is you have to explain that getting super emotional and upset isn't virtuous at all, doesn't make them good parent, etc.

[anonymous]

On 4 May 2014, at 13:14, Lulie Tanett <lu...@lulie.org> wrote:

> On 1 May 2014, at 01:03, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
>>> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>>>
>>>> My Promise To My Children
>>>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>>>> your friend second.
>>
>> Embraces parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child.
>
> Can you explain how this line says that?

Parent is a role. Friend in this context is referring to being helpful
(friendly).

> It says that being a friend contradicts some parts of being a parent,
> and that they prioritise the parent role in situations where they
> conflict.
> (Combined with the rest of the post, it's saying that being a parent
> means doing some things that would be deeply unpleasant and that you
> would not do to friends.)
>
> If anything, the OP is saying that the way to help learning is to not
> be a friend and to have a parent role instead.

helping learning isn't the goal. this bitch is after something else
(which Justin rightly sees as part of the parental role) *over*
learning.

that something else is along the lines of: destroying her child's mind,
making sure the memes win, making him unfit for an open society, making
him obedient to her, making herself feel good.

>>>> I will stalk you,
>>
>> Advocates stalking.
>
> They would say: Yes, usually stalking is bad. But parents have
> responsibilities towards their children, to make sure that they aren't
> doing anything harmful to themselves or others. If they don't know
> what their children is doing, they can't fulfil this responsibility,
> and they might be being neglectful.
>
> This is a situation where the idea 'stalking is bad' appears to
> contradict the idea 'don't be neglectful'.

no the word "stalking" is strong. the bitch is advocating going far far
beyond non-neglect, even beyond active help, to stalking territory. the
purpose is you have to stalk your kid – invade his privacy and stuff
like that – to control him as much as she advocates.

> Saying 'advocating stalking is bad' doesn't actually explain the
> mistake here -- everyone knows stalking is bad; the question is why it
> doesn't contradict this other thing that everyone knows is bad.

everyone knows it's bad but people do it to kids anyway. common theme.
pointing that out is good. why complain?

if you want like extra help understand TCS perspective you could ask in
nicer way and come off as eager to learn, instead of coming off as
arguing the wrong side.

>>>> flip out on you,
>>
>> Advocates anger/emotionalism.
>
> Similar thing here: They think that flipping out *accomplishes
> something*. Just saying it's anger/emotionalism and therefore bad
> doesn't explain the problem.

why don't you complain to the bitch for not explaining in full what
flipping out accomplishes, before you complain to justin for not
explaining in full what the bitch left unstated *and* what's wrong with
that.

> And the explanation isn't trivial. Which of these is it?:
> - it doesn't accomplish anything (why does it appear effective to
> them?)

it doesn't, you're attributing a kind of rational analysis where it
isn't present. you're massively overestimating the bitch who went out of
her way to say how much of a bitch she is. and you're holding justin to
this stupid high standard of argument (even in terms of just how much
work he puts into explaining the bitch's flaws in detail vs simply
omitting some stuff he'd expect TCSers to understand without being told)
while overestimating the bitch and interpretting her generously.

> - it doesn't accomplish what they think it accomplishes
> - there are better ways of accomplishing the thing they want to
> accomplish
> - the thing they want to accomplish is bad
> - the whole idea of having an agenda for children (wanting to
> accomplish a particular effect on them) is bad
> - being angry/emotional is so bad that it overrides any benefit
> etc.
>
> Also it's not even necessarily anger/emotional. Maybe they think the
> act of flipping out is a good *tactic*, like to make their kids take
> them seriously.

if you're unable to figure out arguments against someone this much of an
evil bitch, without justin giving you every detail, maybe changing that
should be your primary focus.

it's hard to tell if you mean what's best objectively, by standards of
person receiving help, by standards of person giving help, by whim, or
what.

> Imagine this attitude applied to romantic relationships. It would be
> terrible slavery and abuse.

you haven't explained this. why would it be slavery or abuse or
whatever? you complain about justin not explaining everything but
conclude by doing the same thing. why?

[anonymous]

noooooo it's not!!! omfg. it's slightly less authoritarian parenting.

> Notice all the "letting."

"letting" implies deciding what kid can/can't do and when.

> It's passive.
> It's not actively trying to help child achieve what they value, so
> it's not embracing parental role over learning to be helpful to one's
> child, exactly. It's more like embracing strong parental role over
> alternative of getting a bit less in the way of child's goals.

it's not as super helpful as is ideal parenting, but it's not really
more passive than the bitch who wants to be a mom not a friend. just
dropping a few ways of being a total bitch doesn't make you a passive or
permissive parent. it just makes you a little less of an authoritarian
bitch.

>>>>> I will stalk you,
>>>
>>> Advocates stalking.
>>
>> They would say: Yes, usually stalking is bad. But parents have
>> responsibilities towards their children, to make sure that they
>> aren't doing anything harmful to themselves or others. If they don't
>> know what their children is doing, they can't fulfil this
>> responsibility, and they might be being neglectful.
>>
>> This is a situation where the idea 'stalking is bad' appears to
>> contradict the idea 'don't be neglectful'.
>>
>> Saying 'advocating stalking is bad' doesn't actually explain the
>> mistake here -- everyone knows stalking is bad; the question is why
>> it doesn't contradict this other thing that everyone knows is bad.
>
> I actually think that the way people typically think about it, being
> very worried/concerned parent and doing stuff consistent with that is
> considered *not stalking at all.* Their misconception is that stalking
> is something lovers do.
>
> So the use of stalk in something like the above is *intended* as like,
> inexact, hyperbole, something like that, I think.

it means, like a lot of the text, that the bitch is going to do stuff
her kid doesn't like. the word "stalk" is admitting kid won't appreciate
it. she's going to do it anyway. she has the power to do it and gloat
online.

(one good way to spot bad parenting is to consider what would happen if
parent tried the same thing without having more power than kid. like if
someone's "educational" methods rely on *power*, wtf. you can do
something similar with other topics too, e.g. consider which government
stuff could work without the government having power over its subjects)

> But lots of the *actual* behaviors can be the same. It is advocating
> those *behaviors*. I think the behaviors are immoral in either romance
> or parenting context and so I take statement as stalking advocacy, and
> think it is worth pointing out what it is.
>
> You are right that there is more to say about critting stalking type
> behaviors.
>
> One thing I think is important is getting across that doing unwanted
> stuff to other people is really immoral even if you think you have
> good reasons. You could be wrong about those reasons. Also, if you
> have good reasons to engage in behavior, why can't you explain them to
> kid persuasively?
>
> I think one thing people think is that there is special knowledge of
> being a parent that is incommunicable if you are not a parent and that
> justifies stuff like being super worried and stalkery. But where does
> this special parental knowledge come from?

it's in the owner's manual that doesn't come with your kid

> And how do you explain why some parents don't engage in these kinda
> behaviors while others do? If they are all parents, and if being
> parent is what makes the different, why do some get the stalkery
> knowledge and others don't?
>
> If parent thinks it is cuz they are extra virtuous and care more, how
> would they distinguish that from claim of romantic relationship
> stalker or physically abusive stalker who says they act like they do
> cuz they love other person so much?

they wouldn't. someone who would understand that question well wouldn't
be such an cruel authoritarian stalker bitch in the first place.

> And are there other areas of life they can identify where the "do
> unwanted stuff to unwilling victims" approach seems compatible with
> being *extra moral?* If not, do they think that's interesting at all?
> Worth reflecting on?

as Ayn Rand might put it: do they think?

Atlas Shrugged, Dagny talking first:

> "If you want to know the one reason that's taking me back, I'll tell
> you; I cannot bring myself to abandon to destruction all the greatness
> of the world, all that which was mine and yours, which was made by us
> and is still ours by right—because I cannot believe that men can
> refuse to see, that they can remain blind and deaf to us forever, when
> the truth is ours and their lives depend on accepting it. They still
> love their lives—and that is the uncorrupted remnant of their minds.
> So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle."
>
> "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? No, don't
> answer me now. I know
> that the answer was the hardest thing for any of us to grasp and to
> accept. Just take that question back with you, as the last premise
> left for you to check."

the "My Promise To My Children" thing was about social role,
emotional-social vibrations, memes, a particular morality, stuff like
that. it's not about thinking (nor about life in AR's sense of the
word).

> Another crit is that engaging in stalkery behavior is
> counterproductive. Like if you try and monitor kid's every move, they
> will just make extra efforts to evade you and then if something does
> happen to them, you won't be able to get ahold of them (or them you)
> and then harm will result. Or they will just ignore your attempts at
> contacting them even if this one time you have something really
> important to tell them (kind of a boy who cried wolf type thing).

yeah but this isn't particularly relevant because they aren't doing it
to be productive, so who cares if it's counterproductive?

[Justin Mallone]

Anon just so we're clear, I did not mean to indicate that I think what i was calling "permissive parenting" is good. Both more traditional authoritarian parenting and "permissive parenting" are not TCS. They are not about helping child on child's own terms, common preference finding, and rational truth seeking. Thus they are both immoral approaches.

>> Notice all the "letting."
>
> "letting" implies deciding what kid can/can't do and when.

Yeah. Like saying you "let your wife (or husband) do X" has pretty serious implications in terms of what the relationship dynamics are. Note also that such statements are commonly made about stuff like say eating particular foods, even today. (e.g. "My wife won't let me eat too much bacon.")

>> It's passive.
>> It's not actively trying to help child achieve what they value, so it's not embracing parental role over learning to be helpful to one's child, exactly. It's more like embracing strong parental role over alternative of getting a bit less in the way of child's goals.
>
> it's not as super helpful as is ideal parenting, but it's not really more passive than the bitch who wants to be a mom not a friend. just dropping a few ways of being a total bitch doesn't make you a passive or permissive parent. it just makes you a little less of an authoritarian bitch.

Can you talk a bit about what you consider the differences between typical authoritarian, passive, and permissive parenting, and give examples?

>>>>>> I will stalk you,
>>>>
>>>> Advocates stalking.
>>>
>>> They would say: Yes, usually stalking is bad. But parents have responsibilities towards their children, to make sure that they aren't doing anything harmful to themselves or others. If they don't know what their children is doing, they can't fulfil this responsibility, and they might be being neglectful.
>>>
>>> This is a situation where the idea 'stalking is bad' appears to contradict the idea 'don't be neglectful'.
>>>
>>> Saying 'advocating stalking is bad' doesn't actually explain the mistake here -- everyone knows stalking is bad; the question is why it doesn't contradict this other thing that everyone knows is bad.
>>
>> I actually think that the way people typically think about it, being very worried/concerned parent and doing stuff consistent with that is considered *not stalking at all.* Their misconception is that stalking is something lovers do.
>>
>> So the use of stalk in something like the above is *intended* as like, inexact, hyperbole, something like that, I think.
>
> it means, like a lot of the text, that the bitch is going to do stuff her kid doesn't like. the word "stalk" is admitting kid won't appreciate it. she's going to do it anyway. she has the power to do it and gloat online.
>
> (one good way to spot bad parenting is to consider what would happen if parent tried the same thing without having more power than kid. like if someone's "educational" methods rely on *power*, wtf. you can do something similar with other topics too, e.g. consider which government stuff could work without the government having power over its subjects)

Interesting tip.

>> But lots of the *actual* behaviors can be the same. It is advocating those *behaviors*. I think the behaviors are immoral in either romance or parenting context and so I take statement as stalking advocacy, and think it is worth pointing out what it is.
>>
>> You are right that there is more to say about critting stalking type behaviors.
>>
>> One thing I think is important is getting across that doing unwanted stuff to other people is really immoral even if you think you have good reasons. You could be wrong about those reasons. Also, if you have good reasons to engage in behavior, why can't you explain them to kid persuasively?
>>
>> I think one thing people think is that there is special knowledge of being a parent that is incommunicable if you are not a parent and that justifies stuff like being super worried and stalkery. But where does this special parental knowledge come from?
>
> it's in the owner's manual that doesn't come with your kid

Is this a joke?

>> And how do you explain why some parents don't engage in these kinda behaviors while others do? If they are all parents, and if being parent is what makes the different, why do some get the stalkery knowledge and others don't?
>>
>> If parent thinks it is cuz they are extra virtuous and care more, how would they distinguish that from claim of romantic relationship stalker or physically abusive stalker who says they act like they do cuz they love other person so much?
>
> they wouldn't. someone who would understand that question well wouldn't be such an cruel authoritarian stalker bitch in the first place.

Worth possibly pointing out to them tho, no?

>> And are there other areas of life they can identify where the "do unwanted stuff to unwilling victims" approach seems compatible with being *extra moral?* If not, do they think that's interesting at all? Worth reflecting on?
>
> as Ayn Rand might put it: do they think?
>
> Atlas Shrugged, Dagny talking first:
>
>> "If you want to know the one reason that's taking me back, I'll tell you; I cannot bring myself to abandon to destruction all the greatness of the world, all that which was mine and yours, which was made by us and is still ours by right—because I cannot believe that men can refuse to see, that they can remain blind and deaf to us forever, when the truth is ours and their lives depend on accepting it. They still love their lives—and that is the uncorrupted remnant of their minds. So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle."
>>
>> "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? No, don't answer me now. I know
>> that the answer was the hardest thing for any of us to grasp and to accept. Just take that question back with you, as the last premise left for you to check."
>
> the "My Promise To My Children" thing was about social role, emotional-social vibrations, memes, a particular morality, stuff like that. it's not about thinking (nor about life in AR's sense of the word).

Do you think it's worth thinking about crits of the ideas held by memey, not very thoughtful people?

>> Another crit is that engaging in stalkery behavior is counterproductive. Like if you try and monitor kid's every move, they will just make extra efforts to evade you and then if something does happen to them, you won't be able to get ahold of them (or them you) and then harm will result. Or they will just ignore your attempts at contacting them even if this one time you have something really important to tell them (kind of a boy who cried wolf type thing).
>
> yeah but this isn't particularly relevant because they aren't doing it to be productive, so who cares if it's counterproductive?

I think it can be worth pointing out to people how their actions conflict with their apparent preferences/desires.

[anonymous]

On 6 May 2014, at 13:32, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, anonymous <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4 May 2014, at 15:34, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Lulie Tanett <lu...@lulie.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1 May 2014, at 01:03, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My Promise To My Children
>>>>>>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>>>>>>> your friend second.

That was already clear.

You took authoritarian non-permissive parenting – where kid is heavily
regulated and controlled – and called it "basically permissive
parenting".

Parent relaxed like 5 rules from a heavily authoritarian starting point.
That isn't being permissive.

>>> Notice all the "letting."
>>
>> "letting" implies deciding what kid can/can't do and when.
>
> Yeah. Like saying you "let your wife (or husband) do X" has pretty
> serious implications in terms of what the relationship dynamics are.
> Note also that such statements are commonly made about stuff like say
> eating particular foods, even today. (e.g. "My wife won't let me eat
> too much bacon.")

Permissive parents leave their kid to rot, and generally don't
interfere. That's very different than carefully monitoring everything he
does and deciding whether or not to "let" him do it. "Letting" isn't
permissive parenting, it's the parent being in charge. No authoritarian
ruler says "no" to everything, sometimes they "let" some things be done
by saying "yes".



>>>>>>> I will stalk you,

>> it means, like a lot of the text, that the bitch is going to do stuff
>> her kid doesn't like. the word "stalk" is admitting kid won't
>> appreciate it. she's going to do it anyway. she has the power to do
>> it and gloat online.
>>
>> (one good way to spot bad parenting is to consider what would happen
>> if parent tried the same thing without having more power than kid.
>> like if someone's "educational" methods rely on *power*, wtf. you can
>> do something similar with other topics too, e.g. consider which
>> government stuff could work without the government having power over
>> its subjects)
>
> Interesting tip.

what are 7,329 example ways you would apply it?

>>> But lots of the *actual* behaviors can be the same. It is advocating
>>> those *behaviors*. I think the behaviors are immoral in either
>>> romance or parenting context and so I take statement as stalking
>>> advocacy, and think it is worth pointing out what it is.
>>>
>>> You are right that there is more to say about critting stalking type
>>> behaviors.
>>>
>>> One thing I think is important is getting across that doing unwanted
>>> stuff to other people is really immoral even if you think you have
>>> good reasons. You could be wrong about those reasons. Also, if you
>>> have good reasons to engage in behavior, why can't you explain them
>>> to kid persuasively?
>>>
>>> I think one thing people think is that there is special knowledge of
>>> being a parent that is incommunicable if you are not a parent and
>>> that justifies stuff like being super worried and stalkery. But
>>> where does this special parental knowledge come from?
>>
>> it's in the owner's manual that doesn't come with your kid
>
> Is this a joke?

yes

>>> And how do you explain why some parents don't engage in these kinda
>>> behaviors while others do? If they are all parents, and if being
>>> parent is what makes the different, why do some get the stalkery
>>> knowledge and others don't?
>>>
>>> If parent thinks it is cuz they are extra virtuous and care more,
>>> how would they distinguish that from claim of romantic relationship
>>> stalker or physically abusive stalker who says they act like they do
>>> cuz they love other person so much?
>>
>> they wouldn't. someone who would understand that question well
>> wouldn't be such an cruel authoritarian stalker bitch in the first
>> place.
>
> Worth possibly pointing out to them tho, no?

you can try.

>>> And are there other areas of life they can identify where the "do
>>> unwanted stuff to unwilling victims" approach seems compatible with
>>> being *extra moral?* If not, do they think that's interesting at
>>> all? Worth reflecting on?
>>
>> as Ayn Rand might put it: do they think?
>>
>> Atlas Shrugged, Dagny talking first:
>>
>>> "If you want to know the one reason that's taking me back, I'll tell
>>> you; I cannot bring myself to abandon to destruction all the
>>> greatness of the world, all that which was mine and yours, which was

>>> made by us and is still ours by right--because I cannot believe that

>>> men can refuse to see, that they can remain blind and deaf to us
>>> forever, when the truth is ours and their lives depend on accepting

>>> it. They still love their lives--and that is the uncorrupted remnant

>>> of their minds. So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my
>>> battle."
>>>
>>> "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? No, don't
>>> answer me now. I know
>>> that the answer was the hardest thing for any of us to grasp and to
>>> accept. Just take that question back with you, as the last premise
>>> left for you to check."
>>
>> the "My Promise To My Children" thing was about social role,
>> emotional-social vibrations, memes, a particular morality, stuff like
>> that. it's not about thinking (nor about life in AR's sense of the
>> word).
>
> Do you think it's worth thinking about crits of the ideas held by
> memey, not very thoughtful people?

sometimes.

do you disagree with something i said in this section?

>>> Another crit is that engaging in stalkery behavior is
>>> counterproductive. Like if you try and monitor kid's every move,
>>> they will just make extra efforts to evade you and then if something
>>> does happen to them, you won't be able to get ahold of them (or them
>>> you) and then harm will result. Or they will just ignore your
>>> attempts at contacting them even if this one time you have something
>>> really important to tell them (kind of a boy who cried wolf type
>>> thing).
>>
>> yeah but this isn't particularly relevant because they aren't doing
>> it to be productive, so who cares if it's counterproductive?
>
> I think it can be worth pointing out to people how their actions
> conflict with their apparent preferences/desires.

yes but do you disagree with something i said in this section? the way
you say this hints at disagreement but does not state disagreement, nor
does it clarify agreement.

do you agree that it's important to understand peoples real
preferences/desires as opposed to their apparent ones?

[Justin Mallone]

On May 8, 2014, at 1:24 AM, anonymous <anon...@curi.us> wrote:

>
> On 6 May 2014, at 13:32, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 2014, at 4:15 PM, anonymous <anon...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2014, at 15:34, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 4, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Lulie Tanett <lu...@lulie.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1 May 2014, at 01:03, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Rami Rustom <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i saw this quote on fb. i tried to track it down its source. but its
>>>>>>> everywhere. so many ppl advocate this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My Promise To My Children
>>>>>>>> For as long as I live I will always be your parent first and
>>>>>>>> your friend second.
>
>>>> Here is a website where a parent advocates not being friend:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.modernmom.com/bd0adc74-3b35-11e3-be8a-bc764e04a41e.html
>>>>
>>>>> But when I asked some mom friends for their thoughts, I was surprised at how many disagreed with me. They want to be their child's friend. I was told that if I was friends with my child, they would tell me everything. Other said they wanted to be a "cool" mom, and that they wanted their child's friends to think they were "cool."
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked what makes a "cool" mom, and my friends all said the same thing: not many rules (like staying up late watching TV, playing video games, computer, cell phone and texting without any rules or consequences for breaking those rules), not being "overprotective, " letting their child go to the house of a friend they don't know, letting them hang out at the mall at quite young ages (because everyone else is), letting them have a Facebook account before they are 13.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could go on and on... and I realized I must be in the minority, because to me it sounded like a cool parent is a parent that lets their child run their house. Apparently cool parent doesn't want to disappoint their child or deal with conflict and has a hard time saying no or setting limits.
>>>>
>>>> So this is basically permissive parenting.
>>>
>>> noooooo it's not!!! omfg. it's slightly less authoritarian parenting.
>>
>> Anon just so we're clear, I did not mean to indicate that I think what i was calling "permissive parenting" is good. Both more traditional authoritarian parenting and "permissive parenting" are not TCS. They are not about helping child on child's own terms, common preference finding, and rational truth seeking. Thus they are both immoral approaches.
>
> That was already clear.
>
> You took authoritarian non-permissive parenting – where kid is heavily regulated and controlled – and called it "basically permissive parenting".
>
> Parent relaxed like 5 rules from a heavily authoritarian starting point. That isn't being permissive.

Overall I am not sure how worthwhile it is to argue over the specific words attached to particular varieties of immoral parenting styles. OTOH I have a hunch that maybe there is something substantive at issue here so I'm going to continue to do so (for now at least).

WRT what you said I am not sure I agree. I think the issue is that I am reading the description provided of the so-called "cool mom" as being indicative of a general approach. All non-TCS parents coerce on a bunch of issues (in an often haphazard and inconsistent fashion), but there are meaningful differentiations in degrees and styles. I think if one reads a bunch of specific examples of stuff a parent doesn't coerce on, one can reasonably speculate (in the light of large amounts of cultural knowledge) about their overall "strictness" or laxness.

It strikes me as unlikely, in the context of my pre-existing knowledge about Western culture and parenting styes, that a parent who engages in the relaxation of rules described above would only relax those specific rules and be authoritarian on all other stuff. I am by no means saying they would be consistent about which rules they relax and why, but I think one can make generalizations reasonably.

There is still no doubt a large amount of coercion and parental authority involved. But a fair amount less than "strict" parents. That is what I think permissive parenting commonly means in our culture. I could be wrong though.

One thing worth clarifying is, I am not sure if you are arguing over what permissive parenting commonly means when used by people in our culture, or what permissive parenting SHOULD be called. If you are arguing over the first, I think you are wrong, but am open to being persuaded, and in particular would be open to examples of people using your definition in common discussion, since evidence of use seems like the best evidence in order to settle a debate over how a term is used. On the other hand, if you are arguing over how the term SHOULD be used, I would be most interested in you elaborating on arguments as to why we should change how the terms are used.

>>>> Notice all the "letting."
>>>
>>> "letting" implies deciding what kid can/can't do and when.
>>
>> Yeah. Like saying you "let your wife (or husband) do X" has pretty serious implications in terms of what the relationship dynamics are. Note also that such statements are commonly made about stuff like say eating particular foods, even today. (e.g. "My wife won't let me eat too much bacon.")
>
> Permissive parents leave their kid to rot,

I am not sure I agree. That sounds like what I'd call "neglectful" or perhaps "totally neglectful" parenting.
Maybe your definition of permissive is *better* for some reason I am not as of yet aware and you have not yet (near as I am able to determine) argued, but I was using the term as it i used commonly in the culture.

See e.g. http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/permissive-parenting.htm

> and generally don't interfere. That's very different than carefully monitoring everything he does and deciding whether or not to "let" him do it. "Letting" isn't permissive parenting

I am not sure I agree. Like, the words "letting" and "permissive" are closely related. A synonym of "let" is "permit". A "permit" (noun) is something you get from a govt authority letting you do stuff after you ask. "Permission" is something you get from a person/entity/authority to be able to do something. To the extent that "permissive" has acquired a strongly independent definition in the context of modifying "parenting", I think it's a certain amount laxness in the "letting", not a lack of "letting" in the first place.

> , it's the parent being in charge.

Well, yes. Even lax exercise of parental authority is still parental authority.

>>>> Another crit is that engaging in stalkery behavior is counterproductive. Like if you try and monitor kid's every move, they will just make extra efforts to evade you and then if something does happen to them, you won't be able to get ahold of them (or them you) and then harm will result. Or they will just ignore your attempts at contacting them even if this one time you have something really important to tell them (kind of a boy who cried wolf type thing).
>>>
>>> yeah but this isn't particularly relevant because they aren't doing it to be productive, so who cares if it's counterproductive?
>>
>> I think it can be worth pointing out to people how their actions conflict with their apparent preferences/desires.
>
> yes but do you disagree with something i said in this section? the way you say this hints at disagreement but does not state disagreement, nor does it clarify agreement.
>
> do you agree that it's important to understand peoples real preferences/desires as opposed to their apparent ones?

I was thinking something like this:

Parent, say, wants to know kid is "OK" or whatever.
Stalkery behavior leads to results which actually contradict this goal. So it is counterproductive to parent goal of wanting to know kid is "OK."
This seems worth pointing out.