Children are indentured servants.

[stebbinsd]

First of all, I'd like to point out that this thread is NOT a matter of politics, it's a matter of the judiciary; it's not about what should or shouldn't be, it's about what is and isn't.

Essentially, just as the the indentured servants owed 7 years of service to their masters for bringing them to the New World, so too do our children owe us 18 years of indentured service for giving them birth. Of course, we can't go around beating the hell out of, or killing, our children, but indentured servants also had that protection, and just like indentured servants to their masters, when it's a child's word against their parents about whether or not they're being abused, the parents/masters' words are superior in court.

This is not a radical rant: I can prove this through a series of facts that are common knowledge, that, when pieced together in a way that no one has ever thought of before, lead to the only possible common denominator: That children are indentured servants in everything but name, because any rights they have, other than three crude meals a day, a roof over their heads (which can be a literal tool shed), and enough clothes to cover their genitals, are only given to them out of the goodness of their parents' hearts, and if the child is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds old, they're still just as much an indentured servant in the eyes of the law as when they first came out of their mother's vagina.

1.First of all, their parents are the ultimate authority. As long as the children are not ordered to do anything illegal, then they are committing a crime if they don't obey their parents' orders on the spot. If they even so much as hesitate, they can be punished corporeally. It's believed that some states, like California, have abolished spanking, but that's not true; California has modified their laws so that “three open hand slaps on the buttocks where there is no sign of physical injury other than skin-deep bruises” is legal. Anyway, if children continue to disobey their parents, they are sent to juvenile detention, the child equivalent to prison (yes, I DID just go there).
2.Also, just like indentured servants, they own nothing. Anything that they own other than the rags that cover their crotches actually belong to the parents, and if they ever feel that the children no longer deserve them, or even if they just want (not need) money for their beer and cigarettes, they can take it to a pawn shop, or even stick their dick in it because their wives won't lay them (that last part may be slightly exaggerated for added effect, but technically, it's 100% true), because that PS3 is your's; you're just letting your child use it. Sure, there are material possessions that their parents can't touch, such as CDs and other negotiable instruments, but that's only because the parents allowed those items to be created in the first place, so they can't touch those negotiable instruments any more than they could if they, themselves, owned them.
3.Also, even though the Bill of Rights gives certain rights to everyone, indiscriminately, that only goes as far as their parents want them to. The First Amendment, for example, is supposed to prevent government-censorship, but if the parents want to censor their children, then the law has sanctioned a form of censorship that is otherwise unconstitutional. The same also applies to things like equal protection (if a parent wants to have a favorite child, that's their right, and the government will not only stay out of the way, like if an employer fires an employee, but they will actually [/i]support[/i] the parents per the terms of Point 1).

So, as you see, children truly are indentured servants in everything but name. If the children love and stay with their parents, it's for the same reason that Uncle Remus (I made it into a URL in case you haven't heard of him) stayed with his master after the Civil War was over: Because the parents/masters chose to treat them better than they were legally required to.

 

[HBK-aholic]

2.Also, just like indentured servants, they own nothing. Anything that they own other than the rags that cover their crotches actually belong to the parents, and if they ever feel that the children no longer deserve them, or even if they just want (not need) money for their beer and cigarettes, they can take it to a pawn shop, or even stick their dick in it because their wives won't lay them (that last part may be slightly exaggerated for added effect, but technically, it's 100% true), because that PS3 is your's; you're just letting your child use it. Sure, there are material possessions that their parents can't touch, such as CDs and other negotiable instruments, but that's only because the parents allowed those items to be created in the first place, so they can't touch those negotiable instruments any more than they could if they, themselves, owned them.

You're wrong here. At 17, I own a lot of things which are mine, and not my mums. Why? Because I work, earning my own money, and buy them for myself. I think you're right in a way, but you've got the ages wrong. 17-18 is too old for a 'child' to be described as a servant of their parents.

 

[stebbinsd]

You're wrong here. At 17, I own a lot of things which are mine, and not my mums. Why? Because I work, earning my own money, and buy them for myself. I think you're right in a way, but you've got the ages wrong. 17-18 is too old for a 'child' to be described as a servant of their parents.

Socially, you're correct.

However, legally speaking, if your parents got drunk one night and destroyed that Xbox 360 with a hammer, you could sue them, just the same as I can sue you for having a hairdo that I think is ugly, but you won't win, because you were a child, and since it was on their property, in their house, paid for by their child, it makes it their property. Besides, even if you did have a job, there's nothing to stop them from taking your entire net paycheck, leaving you with barely enough money for lunch at school. Again, your parents allowing you to use your items is just a matter of their choice, possibly because they don't want you to flip them off when they ask for you to pay for their nursing home bills later on in life.

Also, legally speaking, yes, until it's midnight on your 18th birthday, 16 and 17 year olds actually have it worse than those younger, because they can possibly be tried as adults and get sent to full-fledged prison, instead of just juvenile detention.

 

[HBK-aholic]

it's a child's word against their parents about whether or not they're being abused, the parents/masters' words are superior in court.

If this was true, a whole load of parents would keep their children despite abuse. This is down to evidence from those impartial to the case. A child can phone the police/Childline and say they're being abused, and an independent person will look into it. This isn't down to either the parent or the child, but down to evidence.

 

[stebbinsd]

If this was true, a whole load of parents would keep their children despite abuse. This is down to evidence from those impartial to the case. A child can phone the police/Childline and say they're being abused, and an independent person will look into it. This isn't down to either the parent or the child, but down to evidence.

I said if it was word against word. Physical evidence is the tie-breaker in that case.

So, I remain 100% right on this issue.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Child abuse cases are A LOT more complex that you're making out here. Evidence is crucial either way. There are reports from doctors, extended family, schools, teaching staff etc. It is never simply a parents word against a childs. That would be stupid, and irresponsible of any government who supposedly cares about the children.

 

[stebbinsd]

Evidence is crucial either way.

Either way? Including for the parents/defendants, who carry the benefit of assumption?

There are reports from doctors, extended family, schools, teaching staff etc.

Yes, but unless they put up cameras in the homes, they are going entirely off heresay, and heresay is only admissible in court if the original author is an expert, not if the person saying the heresay is an expert.

It is never simply a parents word against a childs. That would be stupid, and irresponsible of any government who supposedly cares about the children.

What makes you think they do? When have they ever cared about anything that wasn't in their wallets?

To be honest, California is the only state that has very strict corporeal punishment laws. In most other states, anything short of literally beating a child within an inch of his life is either perfectly legal, not-enforced, or cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Either way? Including for the parents/defendants, who carry the benefit of assumption?

Yes, either way, meaning evidence is used to determine whether a child is being abused. If the child is well fed, living in a well-kept house with no physical issues, that's evidence for the parent and against the child. But to assume there's every just a word against word case where the parent can simply say "I don't abuse him" and be believed is silly.

Yes, but unless they put up cameras in the homes, they are going entirely off heresay, and heresay is only admissible in court if the original author is an expert, not if the person saying the heresay is an expert.

You make no sense here.

What makes you think they do? When have they ever cared about anything that wasn't in their wallets?

A government hater, then?

To be honest, California is the only state that has very strict corporeal punishment laws. In most other states, anything short of literally beating a child within an inch of his life is either perfectly legal, not-enforced, or cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well I live in the UK, where things must be very different.

Parents in England and Wales who smack children so hard it leaves a mark will face up to five years.

SOURCE: BBC News

 

[stebbinsd]

Yes, either way, meaning evidence is used to determine whether a child is being abused. If the child is well fed, living in a well-kept house with no physical issues, that's evidence for the parent and against the child. But to assume there's every just a word against word case where the parent can simply say "I don't abuse him" and be believed is silly.

That's exactly what I'm talking about; you're arguing a straw man. However, the minimum requirements for a parent to avoiding abusing their children are about as low as the amount allocated to you for SSI from the government, meaning it is barely enough to get by.

See, your parents could lock you up in your bedroom like in the beginning of the second Harry Potter book, slipping military-style MIEs through a cat flap three times a day, and, to go to school, they let them out and gave them literal coarse robes to wear, they've already met the three requirements to feed, clothe, and house their children, just like with indentured servants.

You make no sense here.

How am I not making any sense? The children complain about getting abused to their teachers, and the teachers testify in court "Little Johnny told me about blah blah blah." Well, unless that testimony comes from the lips of Little Johnny himself, then it's just hearsay.

A government hater, then?

Dude, we're talking about the people who allocated $800 million dollars of taxpayers' money to renovate a gymnasium that only they and their guests had access to. Source: Tonight Show with Jay Leno in 2007.

What is there to NOT hate?

Well I live in the UK, where things must be very different.

Dude, UK is WAY different, simply by nature of their employment laws. In America, the law tells you what you can't be fired for; in the UK, it tells you what you CAN be fired for. Managers in the UK have to go through channels to terminate you. So, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your laws WERE much more humane than our's.

 

[HBK-aholic]

How am I not making any sense? The children complain about getting abused to their teachers, and the teachers testify in court "Little Johnny told me about blah blah blah." Well, unless that testimony comes from the lips of Little Johnny himself, then it's just heresay.

Regarding teachers, what I meant was they see a child 5 days a week, if they saw signs of physical abuse they could testify that. To be fair they should be the ones ringing the police if they believe abuse to be taking place. But teachers can report what they see, which is what I meant.

Dude, UK is WAY different, simply by nature of their employment laws. In America, the law tells you what you can't be fired for; in the UK, it tells you what you CAN be fired for. Managers in the UK have to go through channels to terminate you. So, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your laws WERE much more humane than our's.

I'm going to stop replying now, simply because we're arguing 2 different things. My opinions and arguments are all regarding the UK and how we view abuse and human rights for a child, which seem to be incredibly different in America, where I don't have enough information to have an opinion.

+ Rep, though.

 

[jokeboy624]

All your points are well articulated and based on the written law, but the thing that you're neglecting is the implied intent of laws which is exactly the job of a judge, to determine the implied intent of the law. In an example, you say that a parent only has to give a child three meals a day, clothing, a roof and let them out to go to school (I've paraphrased, of course) but you can still be charged with neglect because emotional neglect is illegal.

I do have more points to debate, but I really should be writing a paper right now, so I'll return later.

 

[klunderbunker]

Are you really comparing children to servants? They're not workers, they're family. Parents aren't required to do anything for their children, but when they do they do it out of love. I certainly wouldn't expect my kids to pay me back for anything I do for them. The problem I have with it is that an indentured servant asks for a contract such as that. I've yet to meet a kid that asks to be conceived and born. It's the adults' responsiblity when they bring a child into the world to look after them, not some kind of contract.

 

[Raw Power]

Thread starter made soem ******ed comments on the first page - didnt' read any mroe of his crap. That whole XBOX situation is 100% bullcrap - if a child buys it and a parent destroys it - the child is probably in a legally advantageous situation - especially if the child paid for it with money the earnt themselves. Destroyign their property is both criminal damage and technically theft under UK law at least.

 

[stebbinsd]

All your points are well articulated and based on the written law, but the thing that you're neglecting is the implied intent of laws which is exactly the job of a judge, to determine the implied intent of the law. In an example, you say that a parent only has to give a child three meals a day, clothing, a roof and let them out to go to school (I've paraphrased, of course) but you can still be charged with neglect because emotional neglect is illegal.

You're right on the emotional neglect part, but just like physical neglect, the requirements are bare minimum. If parents were required by law to "spend quality time" with their children, a lot less kids would be on the streets because their parents were working all day.

There's a difference between neglect and abuse; neglect is when you don't do the things you're required to do; abuse is when you actualy go out of your way to attack them, either physically or orally. Emotional abuse is when you actively call your children names, and talk about how they'll never amount to anything, yadda yadda yadda.

But you can never commit emotional abuse if you only physically see them long enough to give them their MIE or send them on the school bus.

 

[LigerBomb]

First of all, I'd like to point out that this thread is NOT a matter of politics, it's a matter of the judiciary; it's not about what should or shouldn't be, it's about what is and isn't.

Essentially, just as the the indentured servants owed 7 years of service to their masters for bringing them to the New World, so too do our children owe us 18 years of indentured service for giving them birth. Of course, we can't go around beating the hell out of, or killing, our children, but indentured servants also had that protection, and just like indentured servants to their masters, when it's a child's word against their parents about whether or not they're being abused, the parents/masters' words are superior in court.

This is not a radical rant: I can prove this through a series of facts that are common knowledge, that, when pieced together in a way that no one has ever thought of before, lead to the only possible common denominator: That children are indentured servants in everything but name, because any rights they have, other than three crude meals a day, a roof over their heads (which can be a literal tool shed), and enough clothes to cover their genitals, are only given to them out of the goodness of their parents' hearts, and if the child is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds old, they're still just as much an indentured servant in the eyes of the law as when they first came out of their mother's vagina.

1.First of all, their parents are the ultimate authority. As long as the children are not ordered to do anything illegal, then they are committing a crime if they don't obey their parents' orders on the spot. If they even so much as hesitate, they can be punished corporeally. It's believed that some states, like California, have abolished spanking, but that's not true; California has modified their laws so that “three open hand slaps on the buttocks where there is no sign of physical injury other than skin-deep bruises” is legal. Anyway, if children continue to disobey their parents, they are sent to juvenile detention, the child equivalent to prison (yes, I DID just go there).
2.Also, just like indentured servants, they own nothing. Anything that they own other than the rags that cover their crotches actually belong to the parents, and if they ever feel that the children no longer deserve them, or even if they just want (not need) money for their beer and cigarettes, they can take it to a pawn shop, or even stick their dick in it because their wives won't lay them (that last part may be slightly exaggerated for added effect, but technically, it's 100% true), because that PS3 is your's; you're just letting your child use it. Sure, there are material possessions that their parents can't touch, such as CDs and other negotiable instruments, but that's only because the parents allowed those items to be created in the first place, so they can't touch those negotiable instruments any more than they could if they, themselves, owned them.
3.Also, even though the Bill of Rights gives certain rights to everyone, indiscriminately, that only goes as far as their parents want them to. The First Amendment, for example, is supposed to prevent government-censorship, but if the parents want to censor their children, then the law has sanctioned a form of censorship that is otherwise unconstitutional. The same also applies to things like equal protection (if a parent wants to have a favorite child, that's their right, and the government will not only stay out of the way, like if an employer fires an employee, but they will actually [/i]support[/i] the parents per the terms of Point 1).

So, as you see, children truly are indentured servants in everything but name. If the children love and stay with their parents, it's for the same reason that Uncle Remus (I made it into a URL in case you haven't heard of him) stayed with his master after the Civil War was over: Because the parents/masters chose to treat them better than they were legally required to.

Jeezuz where to begin... I hope to God you're young because this could (hopefully) only be the rant of a child... and a rather disgruntled one at that. That you view the rearing of children in such a light as to make comparisons and allusions to indentured servitude, wage slavery, or flat out slavery in general is both ignorant and disturbing. Contrary to the "views" expressed above, parenting of a child for it's first 18 years is not about the abject capitulation of human freedoms in favor of outright servitude to your parental "masters".
1. Parents are not an ultimate authority... You hit me (for example sake a child) well two options then present themselves either you hit back, ("yes, I went there") or you report it to the true authorities; you know like the Police and Child Services. Your mentioning of

"three open hand slaps on the buttocks where there is no sign of physical injury other than skin-deep bruises”

Is a far cry from actual child abuse. I've know people who had endured cigarettes being put out on their flesh and other horrors so please lets cross the "abuse" bridge when we actually come to it. Also might I add that if you're at the age where your parents still swat your ass with "three open hand slaps" you're probable young enough to have no idea about shit anyway and most likely shouldn't be allowed to make your own decisions yet as you've probably not reach the age of reason and understanding to begin with. And no you don't get sent to Juvenile Detention for disobeying your parents you get sent there for breaking laws of the state/country. Where what you're saying to be true you'd see many a child in Juvie for not eating there vegetables, cleaning their rooms, taking out the trash, or doing their homework assignments. A court of Law must sentence you to such a facility not Mommy and Daddy.
2. Possession is 9/10th of the Law and all that Jazz... Ownership of material goods especially if the "child" has an income and pays taxes on said income is dicey at best. Were you to take it to court that a child who earns a taxable wage purchases goods with that taxed income many a court would find ownership in the "child's" favor. Now if you're talking about a 10 year old and the video games his parents bought him as a gift then that's entirely different and subject to a different set of ideas and understandings in regards to the terms of ownership, and parental guidance. If anything I'd say the above to points are being favor in regards to children. Recently many family court judges are denying these so called parental rights to people and siding with the children of these cases. I suggest you read up further on such matters. Parentalrights.org while being a bit to one sided, has many an example where jurisdictions are pro child and "anti"parental rights.
3a. Federal censorship prevention laws and child upbringing is neither here nor there... and to make a connection is a highly straining point. Moot as it may be, a child can certainly speak his mind. Where he not "allowed" to a parent would have to literally keep his/her mouth shut to prevent the child from speaking. Now if this is backed up by the above mentions "butt slaps" and the further physical restraints that are actually abusive then really there's not much room for further talk as I've already delved into the ramifications of child abuse and how easy it is to get people called up on charges (trumped up as they may be). By the by, the First Amendment is about protecting the citizens of America from their own GOVERNMENT where they to make LAWS "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It has nothing to do with parents tell their kids to shut their mouths...
3b. Equal protection or Amendment XIV once again has fuck all to do with child-parent interactions so I see no reason to interject, but let me just say if a parent want to play favorites with his/her kids then turn about is fair play and a kid could always love mummy or daddy more. Regardless there is a standard which parents must keep in term of the conditions they raise (all) their kids lest once again Family Court and CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES come into play (which as I mentioned above is becoming increasingly easier to do).
This was off the top of my head... good luck when someone else who actually does the research comes on and destroys your "thesis" for real.

 

[Razor]

First of all, I'd like to point out that this thread is NOT a matter of politics, it's a matter of the judiciary; it's not about what should or shouldn't be, it's about what is and isn't.

Uh oh. The last time you tried to be judicial you got into some hot water between Xfear and myself. You know, the whole making new laws thing?

Essentially, just as the the indentured servants owed 7 years of service to their masters for bringing them to the New World, so too do our children owe us 18 years of indentured service for giving them birth. Of course, we can't go around beating the hell out of, or killing, our children, but indentured servants also had that protection,and just like indentured servants to their masters, when it's a child's word against their parents about whether or not they're being abused, the parents/masters' words are superior in court.

If a child were to go to the police saying "My daddy touched me in my naughty place" try and tell me that the parent's word is weighed more than the child's. The child would be taken by DHS, examined, and if any physical evidence were found that father would be in court faster than you could say "I never touched the child."

Now, if you're going about "I punched his head in" abuse, it goes about the same way. A child tells the police or his teachers, he gets taken to be examined by the doctors, and if signs of abuse are found then the adult is taken to court.

I don't understand this paragraph. Do you want children to be able to make unbased claims in court about abuse and be considered more trustworthy than their parents? If the child has physical evidence on his/her body of the abuse, in any form, then the child's testimony is taken as truth. As any testimony that is corroborated by science/medical knowledge is.

This is not a radical rant: I can prove this through a series of facts that are common knowledge, that, when pieced together in a way that no one has ever thought of before, lead to the only possible common denominator: That children are indentured servants in everything but name, because any rights they have, other than three crude meals a day, a roof over their heads (which can be a literal tool shed), and enough clothes to cover their genitals, are only given to them out of the goodness of their parents' hearts, and if the child is 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds old, they're still just as much an indentured servant in the eyes of the law as when they first came out of their mother's vagina.

Well. Let's see these facts.

1.First of all, their parents are the ultimate authority. As long as the children are not ordered to do anything illegal, then they are committing a crime if they don't obey their parents' orders on the spot.

Oh? The police could have arrested me 3 years ago for not taking out the trash on time? If it is illegal, then it is breaking a law. If it is breaking a law, the police are the ones that uphold that law. So, by your logic, the police should have stepped in and arrested me/forced me to take out the trash instead of my mom yelling at me. That seems a little silly.

If they even so much as hesitate, they can be punished corporeally. It's believed that some states, like California, have abolished spanking, but that's not true; California has modified their laws so that “three open hand slaps on the buttocks where there is no sign of physical injury other than skin-deep bruises” is legal.

But that's not a legal recourse. You can't take your child to court for not washing the car and request as punishment that your child be subject to "three open hand slaps on the buttocks where there is no sign of physical injury other than skin-deep bruises." That law is in place to protect parents who resort to corporal punishment to discipline their child, but don't go over the line from DHS suits. You act as though spanking is equivalent to when the slaves were given 40 lashes for not being in the fields soon enough.

Anyway, if children continue to disobey their parents, they are sent to juvenile detention, the child equivalent to prison (yes, I DID just go there).

Bullshit. I went through about 5 years where I did NOTHING my mother told me to do. The only thing I did do was get good grades. Other than that, I wasn't doing a damn thing she told me. I didn't once get told I was anywhere near juvenile detention. Why? Juvenile detention is a legal recourse for the court to use against juveniles who break the law. Any disobedience I show to my mother is NOT a legal problem. It's a domestic problem. Therefore, this entire sentence is ludicrous. You're assigning a legal solution to a domestic problem that is not covered with the laws of society.

2.Also, just like indentured servants, they own nothing. Anything that they own other than the rags that cover their crotches actually belong to the parents,

Well, technically, if the child didn't buy the objects then they're not his. Even those "rags on their crotches."

Oh, and by the way. I love your use of inflammatory language. Instead of saying "clothes on their backs," it's "rags that cover their crotches." It really tugs at the heartstrings. Only not really.

and if they ever feel that the children no longer deserve them, or even if they just want (not need) money for their beer and cigarettes, they can take it to a pawn shop, or even stick their dick in it because their wives won't lay them (that last part may be slightly exaggerated for added effect, but technically, it's 100% true), because that PS3 is your's; you're just letting your child use it.

As long as the parent is giving his child three healthy meals, clothes, and a shelter to sleep in he is doing everything the law requires of him. That PS3 is extra. He can do whatever the fuck he wants with it. Now, if he's subjecting the children to substandard living conditions in order to have a PS3, then you'd have a case in which DHS could get involved. But if he's caring for his children in every other way possible, he's within the legal bounds. Which are very strict when it comes to raising children.

Sure, there are material possessions that their parents can't touch, such as CDs and other negotiable instruments, but that's only because the parents allowed those items to be created in the first place, so they can't touch those negotiable instruments any more than they could if they, themselves, owned them.

Only if the child bought those CDs him/herself. If the adult bought them, he can argue that he still owns those CDs, so he can do whatever he wants with them.

3.Also, even though the Bill of Rights gives certain rights to everyone, indiscriminately,

It extends to adults that are recognized under the law. Minors are legally bound by laws that adults are free of.

that only goes as far as their parents want them to.

Not parents. The law. For reals.

The First Amendment, for example, is supposed to prevent government-censorship, but if the parents want to censor their children, then the law has sanctioned a form of censorship that is otherwise unconstitutional.

If a child really wants to say something, he can say it. He can go out to the sidewalk and yell into a microphone, "I'm an indentured servant! Ah!" The law will have no recourse against him. Now, say a parent comes by and tells him to stop. The child has no legal responsibility to stop for his parent. This comes down to just how much his parents what to control the child, and how much the child wants to allow the parents to control him.

The same also applies to things like equal protection (if a parent wants to have a favorite child, that's their right, and the government will not only stay out of the way, like if an employer fires an employee, but they will actually [/i]support[/i] the parents per the terms of Point 1).

WHo gives a shit if they like a child more? Give the favorite child a few extra sweets, a few extra games? Unless the parents is straight up physically or mentally abusing that not-as-favorite child then there is nothing illegal about it.

And the comparison is ludicrous. You can't "fire" your child. You can give him up for adoption, sure. But i don't see how giving your child up for adoption should be stopped by the law. Unless you have some kind of weird reason I haven't heard yet.

So, as you see, children truly are indentured servants in everything but name.

I'm not convinced.

If the children love and stay with their parents, it's for the same reason that Uncle Remus (I made it into a URL in case you haven't heard of him) stayed with his master after the Civil War was over: Because the parents/masters chose to treat them better than they were legally required to.

Bullshit. The laws about how to treat your children are really rather stringent. You can't abuse your children. And no, spanking is not abuse. If it leaves marks, it is. But other than that, no it's not. You can't mentally abuse your children, you can't starve your children, you can't give your children substandard living conditions. Or else DHS will snap up your children faster than you can blink. You act as though children are chained to a wall in the basement and the government says "Huh. Oh well. You're the parent." That's not the case at all.

 

[NSL]

Everyone else has pretty much torn you to shreds (again), so as a parent, I need to find something to comment on here.

First, my son is not my servant. He's my son. I'd never treat him like a servant, or treat him the way you think I legally can. I feel bad throwing away a toy that he broke himself. No parent (of sound mind), wants to hurt their child, in any way.

Second, you can't go to a juvenile detention center, simply for disobeying your parents. Otherwise, we'd all be in one. The way you stated it, we'd have to go in, if our parents said "Go jump off a bridge", and we said "No". Disobeying our parents is human nature. We know what we believe is best for ourselves, and no one will change that.

I'll probably comment further when my head stops hurting from reading your threads...

 

[gd]

I'm not going to make a long post like others, but I am going to completely disagree with you. A child is much different that a servant. Children are family, they share love with their parents. Even before there were indentured servants there was the concept of family. Sure there may seem to be some similiarities between children and indentured servants, but they are obviously not the same.

Another horrible point you made was about children not owning things. I am a teenager that lives with my parent. I own plenty of things, I pay for car insurance and gas, I am responsible for myself. My parents are in charge of me, but they don't control every aspect of my life. Sure I do work for them sometimes, but it's because they are family and I want to help them, not because I am forced to.

Children also will interact with their parents for the rest of their lives. Not like indentured servants who work for a few years and then leave never to be seen ago. Children and parents will always be apart of each other's lives. When parents get older and need help their kids will be there for them.

The relationship between parents and their kids is obviously much different than indentured servant's relationships with their masters and you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise.

 

[SavageTaker]

So, what you’re basically saying is that children should pay their mothers back for giving birth to them, even though it wasn’t the Childs decision. Do you even know what an indentured servant is? I guess you don’t or else you wouldn’t be calling children indentured servants so I’ll gladly tell you; an indentured servant was someone who was brought to the new world without having to pay for their trip with money, however they did have to pay by working for 7 years for the person that payed for the trip. The indentured servants had a choice; they could either come to the new world or stay where they were at. Children don’t choose whether the mother gives birth to them or not.

A lot of the things you said are untrue but I’ll just tell you about one. An example of something you said that was untrue was that children don’t own anything. I have worked for some of the things I have. I’ve earned money and with that very same money I’ve bought clothing, shoes, colognes, DVD’s, e.t.c. None of the stuff that I’ve bought is my mother’s because she didn’t pay for it. Everything I’ve bought it ALL MINES because I payed for those items with my OWN money that I EARNED by WORKING.

Overall, children are not indentured servants because unlike servants they didn't have a choice.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

Servants? Are you serious. Come on dude there is no comparison. No judge is going to throw a kid in juvie for disobeying his pars. A kid can own certian items given to them as a gift or that they have earned by working their own job. Your argument is completely unfounded.

 

[TwistofRKO]

What's the point here?

If I housed somebody, fed them, bathed them, provided for them I should have the right to raise this person the way I saw fit. You aren't sending them into the field for hours, only yelling for them when you need more lemonade. You provide everything for them, that Xbox 360 you speak of is worthless without the electric bill that is being paid every month. How many things do kids break? I broke two windows when I was younger. Am I still being punished and billed? No, my loving parents forgiven me. They don't expect me to pay for everything, they house my siblings and I out of love.

What's the point to this?