= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dclayh comments on Our House, My Rules - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (229)
In my experience, children are cruel, immoral, egotistical, and utterly selfish. The last thing they need is to have their inflated sense of self worth and entitlement stroked by the sort of parenting you seem to be advocating. Children ought to have fundamentally lower status, not just because they're children per se, but because they're stupid and useless. They should indeed be grateful that anyone would take the trouble to feed and care for someone as stupid and useless as they, and repay the favor by becoming stronger.
So then the legal system should award status based on usefulness and intelligence, not age as in the present system.
Usefulness to whom?
Well, no.
Status is a informal, social concept. The legal system doesn't have much to do with "awarding" it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors
But should stupid adults have no rights?
Fewer rights, perhaps.
More to the point, equal rights isn't a good idea because it's just and right, but rather because it's a defensive position against rulers who grant extra rights to privileged groups.
/me checks into legal status of retarded adults & vegetables
Dunno about 'should', but they don't have very much beyond what kids have...
Usefulness to who? Isn't it enough for people to be useful to themselves if they're not harmful to others?