Current Events > You're kicking your kids out of the house once they turn 18

(+) Yeah! (+)

What part of partially responsible did you not get from my original post?

What part of "partially" always being responsible is a misconception.

Im pretty sure you just dont know how to use words at this point.

I know exactly how it works. You just don't like someone not agreeing with your misconception.

Says the guy who doesnt know what objectively means.

It appears you don't know what it means.

Objective can also take the adverb form, objectively. This is used to describe an action that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Making the broad claim and assumption that all parents are partially responsible for how a child turns out is you speaking from a place of your personal feelings. In otherwords, not an objective statement to make.

I feel like a kid getting into bad cliques at school is 100% out of a parents control b

That's one thing but a parent should have a relationship with their child such that the child communicates the kind of people they're hanging out with and the parents should be able to pick up on if said people are negatively influencing their child and be able to steer their child (not by force/banning them from seeing said people, necessarily) away from associating with them (as often or even at all).

It's called parenting and if you can do it effectively, you can avoid things. Now, obviously accidents happen or one time scenarios can lead to a loss of control, like getting hooked on hard drugs, but in ideal scenarios, parents should be able to wield a lot of influence and trust.

This.

Getting into bad cliques is out of their control, yes. *Staying* in that clique without the parents doing anything about it or even knowing about it is absolutely the parents fault.

What part of partially responsible did you not get from my original post?

Privilege, my ass. I didnt say parents should monitor their child 24/7 and control every aspect of their life. Stop making excuses for bad parents who do the exact opposite instead.

what kind of shitty parent would kick their kids onto the streets

For fucks sake.

The inverse of parents are partially responsible for how their child turns out is not sometimes children turn out better than their bad parents or vice-versa.

The inverse is parents are never responsible for how their child turns out.

You are not disproving my statement by saying the result is different from the upbringing. If anything, youre proving it from another angle. The child turning out different from how the parents raised them is still ultimately their responsibility.

It is untrue that how a child turns out is always the partial or full results of how a parent raised their child.

Why dont you name a situation that is completely out of the parents hands, that would fully absolve them of any responsibility for how their kid was affected?

In just about every case, an absentee parent would be considered a bad one. This isnt to say that they would be completely at fault, but if something couldve been prevented by the parents actually involving themselves, they are objectively responsible for the result.

And yet you cant answer this.

So you dont have an argument, gotcha.

I cant read, says the guy who has continuously failed to actually disprove any of my points.

If your child turned out to be such a dangerous individual, that would have been partially your fault regardless of them turning 18.

Kicking them out after that fact does not absolve you of being a shitty parent.

Youre the one posting a bunch of irrelevant facts to try and prove a point.

Yes, kids can turn out different from how their parents raised them. Yet you still havent disproved how that is still the parents responsibility. If a kid commits a crime, the parents take the heat. That is an indisputable fact, regardless of any factors you keep trying to bring up to distract from the main point.

No amount of parenting can overrule freewill.

If a kid commits a crime, the parents take the heat.

Thats not how burden of proof works.

That is a fact, and parents being responsible is the conclusion from that fact.

You need to disprove this if you want to make the claim that parents arent responsible.

It IS an indisputable fact. Who the fuck do you think is responsible for the child otherwise? If not a parent, then a parental figure or themselves, but the law literally does not allow for the latter except in extreme cases (like orphans).

Its like the concept of juvie or statutory completely escaped you.

Oh, so you have nuanced thoughts on that.

And people think Im bad for being a lolicon when we have CEmen thinking real kids can take responsibility for themselves.

Oh, so you have nuanced thoughts on that.

And people think Im bad for being a lolicon when we have CEmen thinking real kids can take responsibility for themselves.

What part of partially responsible did you not get from my original post?

Privilege, my ass. I didnt say parents should monitor their child 24/7 and control every aspect of their life. Stop making excuses for bad parents who do the exact opposite instead.

A kid has to *learn* how to take responsibility before they can actually take responsibility. Until that time, the parents are the one responsible. The only instance I can think of where this doesnt apply is if theres literally no one to raise the child.

I dont know why you keep bringing up free will when I already said this.