Should children have the right to kill their parents in retaliation for ruined childhoods...

In the United States, parents have the right to physically assault their children.

Spanking is not the same as frequent battering user.

Spanking is physical assault. You spank another adult and you're off to jail.

Don't try to deny it, parent scum.

Bruh within reason

so BDSM sex is illegal?

> should parents have total control of a child's life for 18 years

It's worse than slavery, so no.

> Physical assault

Leave a mark, and it's illegal in my state. Not even sure how that would work on another adult, as it could likely be interpreted as sexual harassment instead.

It's a very leaky analogy.

I never got this attitude as a person who lives in a country that does not allow any capital punishment.

>parent spanking a child in a scenario where a child understand why he is being punished is somehow worse than time outs and other stuff that have been proven to be harmful to the child

It's hypocritical.

Fine - you spank another adult *without consent* and you're going to jail.

if there are laws protecting children then it's not total control

Children can't give consent, as proven by several legal restrictions they have before they turn 18.

Those would be included in the 'ruined childhood' mentioned in the OP.

Parents might try to be decent human beings if they were to face consequences for their actions.

Then it can never be legal to spank them.

I never thought about it that way, I suppose you could bring up parents who spank their children on sexual harassment charges as well as battery charges.

As would be restraining an adult in a corner against their will for saying a word you did.

We also do not imprison a young child when they strike another person, or take something without asking/paying, etc.

It's almost like they aren't tiny little adults and our laws and norms for parents that interact with them have to change for that fact, within certain limits we define as a society.

Look, what do you want here?

Most people agree beating your child to the point of leaving a mark, or shoving them in a room without explaining why their behavior was wrong, constitutes bad parenting. We just don't agree on how bad that has to get before we pull a child out of a home and place them in a foster home instead.

>le sophist cult leader

just about to deFOO huh?

You're suggesting that children shouldn't have to do do anything/put into any situations without their consent?

What if you're in a courtroom with a 6 year old child and the jugde has to decide whether the father gets the custody and the mother. The child insists he wants to stay with the mom, but all experts are saying to you that the father is a better option, and the Child is saying mother because he is afraid of her.

What about a 5 year old who clearly under influence decides to pass his inheritance?

There's a reason why humans gain legal rights the older they get, and why some people can get their legal rights reduced.

>and
or*

>Parents might try to be decent human beings
Most actually do that.
I'm sorry your parents made you sleep in the outhouse or whatever retarded thing happened to you that you are whinning about it on a cambogian cooking forum, user.

I want to break the iron grip that parents have on their children, because it fucks up children for life when a parent indulges their petty, vicious whims and grudges against their child. If parents knew they would face the wrath of their adult children with the backing off the legal system, they would think twice before arbitrarily and pointlessly ruining their child's life.

Who then should act as the guardians of the Child? The Government?

Unless you require cameras in the house, it's not going to happen. One persons word against another about what happened decades ago.

Not to mention, when you factor in the costs of raising me, feeding me, educating me (fuck me that was expensive), I'd probably still be in the red if I sued my parents for the mistakes they made.

If the mother is coercing the child, then she should be punished and imprisoned. The mother then ceases to be an option for the child.

Similarly for the coercer in the inheritance example.

Your parents chose to incur those costs when they choose to have you. You are not liable for them. You owe them nothing.

You still get hungry and need shelter, AI your parents actually owe you.

The parents, of course, with the cops one wish by the child away. If they don't want to walk that tightrope then they shouldn't have children.

What if it can't be proved or the mother hasn't done anything illegal that makes her a worse option?

What if the kid want's to change his name to "Chicken Mc Nigger" because his friend dared him to?

Yep. Parents got a good few months after conception to decide on having a kid, with time prior they should know if they actually plan on treating it good.

If they treat the kid like shit for 18 years they should pay for fucking up a person permanently.

Nothing wrong with being named Chicken McNigger, user.

I'd be tempted to include things like being poor, or living in bumfuck nowhere.

Being a kid in a poor family is shit.

>If they don't want to walk that tightrope then they shouldn't have children.

Yeah man, just make it so the laws and social structure make it so that wanting to create children and keep society alive would be exclusive to those that are just completely insane.

Children have way too many liberites already. They can commit crimes with the law being ą00 times more lenient on them than on an adult (with them commiting a crime actually just getting the parent into shit). They can already do whatever the fuck they want and retards like you create a kind of environment to them where the idea of consequences for your actions seems alien.

Still shitty parenting. Shows your kid you're too brain dead to just talk things out and explain, then create a fitting punishment. Or just 'Use violence to solve your problems!'

If you just beat a kid with a belt for stealing a chocolate bar it isn't teaching him jack shit, its just using the method you use to train animals. Best case scenario you're training him like an animal, worst case you enforced a risk vs reward thing.
We can know shit now, kids can learn things really fast. Or the imprint actual self inflicted guilt just by passive actions.

I think having children is already an insane thing to do.

I don't care if society ends after my death. Why would I?

> You owe them nothing
> They owe you everything

So we agree that children are nothing like adults then, right? Because this scenario does not exist anywhere in the adult world.

Again, children are not tiny little adults. The laws regarding parent-child relationships cannot be the same as citizen-citizen relationships.

> The parents, of course, with the cops one wish by the child away. If they don't want to walk that tightrope then they shouldn't have children.

Which is effectively (although imperfectly) what we already have, user. If you call the police and report your parents beating you, I promise you CPS will get involved.

If you're looking for a civil court case for past wrongs, feel free to bring it. To my knowledge, nothing on the books preventing such a case.

Right well you're a fucking retard. Thanks for clearing that up.

Your parents should have just went all the way and thrown you into a well.

The only thing my mother hitting me around the head taught me was how to duck.

Great rebuttal, friend.

That's a pretty important life skill desu

>I think childrens fukken sux humanity should just die out lol rebutt me

Yeah, I really wish rearing children was regulated in some way. Call me whatever dystopian thing you'd want, but hear me out.

What if parents just had to reach a legal income limit and pass a rigorous screening to have kids? Make it so the bare minimum for kids isn't living in a shithole apartment with drug deals in the kitchen, and the parents are shown to be mentally prepared to raise a child.
It would also weed out the problem of children 'inheriting' shitty parenting from their parents. Like how a kid from divorced or abusive parents will get divorced with a kid, or be abusive themselves.

I only received a spanking for dishonesty, i.e. theft or lying. My father explained it was due to the premeditated nature of deceit.

That being said, I do not expect to carry on that tradition.

I learned to fear human affection.
They made a regular habit of beating me if they thought I started liking anyone in school. Wonderful parents in this world.

I mean, I'm at peace with humanity dying out. We fucked ourselves anyways, we shouldn't make more people suffer whatever hell this planet is going to become.

Noble (if somewhat classist) intent, but politically infeasible in a democracy/republic, and likely unenforceable as well.

Will you forcibly abort fetuses born to families beneath the poverty line. Or just demand that police forces across the nation kick down doors to relocate infants to already crowded foster homes?

>We fucked ourselves anyways
Yeah, thanks to fuckwits like you. Now if your parents had thrown you into a well, then it would have been a different story.

The obligation does not end when a child reaches adulthood. They do not stop requiring food and shelter. A parent owes an adult child everything too.

CPS is far too timid.

Civil liability simply makes raising a child potentially more expensive. It does not solve the problem.

Good on you.

As for your dad: Fuck his reasoning, premeditated can apply to anything. Kids are driven by instinct or emotion more than anything, most they're thinking is telling the truth will get them in trouble, which it probably would in most cases.

Its better to just be like 'Alright kid, I'm angry. You fucked up, go help fix it or apologize and face your shame. Next time tell the truth and you won't face double the sheer shame of your failure.'

Children should have more rights. How many children are being raised by people who whore them out and are not even their parents and the state considers them their true parents? Children should have as much rights as an adult and should have the freedom to come and go as they please. The way we treat children is how past cultures treated slaves.

>Will you forcibly abort fetuses born to families beneath the poverty line.
Yes. It is worth it to save the lives of the children.

Wew

I do my part man, I recycle, I spent at least two days a month cleaning up the trash from the water near me. I'm just one guy though, and I'm not smart. The world is fucked, and I know I sure as hell ain't enough to fix it, and humanity as a whole doesn't give a fuck, so we're all gonna die.

And that's the point of this thread.

They fucked you up, and face no consequences for it.

I'm sorry they did that to you, user.

> The obligation does not end when a child reaches adulthood

The overwhelming number of voters seem to disagree here though. And you know what that means.

> CPS if far too timid

Let's say a 10 year old child calls in a spanking that would normally warrant an investigation by CPS. In your ideal world, how would this situation play out?

> Civil liability simply makes raising a child potentially more expensive. It does not solve the problem.

Would you mind explaining in greater detail what mechanism you would prefer?

>you can't make me eat these veggies! you're denying my human rights

Hello Molyneux.

>the fuck you mean I can't go out and play in traffic? Fuck you mom, fuck you dad, I'm calling child support and I'm telling them you spanked me. Enjoy D-row.

youtube.com/watch?v=iNR-x1net-A

Classist maybe, but it is possible to have economic classes while maintaining some degree of child regulation. Odds are the trailer trash with 10 kids isn't exactly doing much now, no reason for them to be breeding.

If pregnancy is found out via medical services run the checks and if they fail: Abort. Child birthing would have to be done privately if someone wanted to hide it, and even then I'm sure it would get out a kid is suddenly there eventually. At that point: Take the kid, evaluate their health and opinions on the situation if possible, screen the parents. If they fail or the kid seems actually damaged in some way the kid is sent to a foster home (With limits on child production, I'm sure these would be a bit more common), if they pass the parents get a minor punishment but left alone with the child put in to the system.
Also would have to make sure the kid is vaccinated, fucking hate those parents the most and they deserve prison time now.

The majority of voters are parents. Of course they don't want to face up to their responsibilities or fix the messes they created.

Bring battery charges against the father. Place the child in temporary care while the case is pending.

Imprisonment or capital punishment are more appropriate. Labor camps are frowned upon but provide an opportunity to extract something from the parent to compensate the child.

You're gonna make it, user. You're going places.

Or on the vegan side
> Fuck you, I'm going to eat meat!

Seriously, people are like this. Kids need meat, man.

>child understand why he is being punished
Then there's no need for punishment
Every time you punish your child, you are passing up an opportunity to teach them good morals and reasoning. If you put them in time out, you don't teach them anything; if you spank them, you teach them to fear you.

A better analogy would be your college professor slapping you across the face when you misunderstood something instead of teaching you again.

Raised with a belt. I know how bad it gets, and my father and I haven't spoken in several years. Before you say anything, it wasn't just because I was a little pooh-poohed at being spanked when I was younger, but many things that made me disrespect him totally.

Parents who spank are more often than not also verbally abusive, more quick to violence and just more unpleasant to be around than reasoned parents. Anyone raised as I was will understand this painfully well.

the world is unfair. you're thinking of some "just deserts" kind of deal but that can have no legitimacy unless it's universally enforced, which it can't be.

as for why parents standardly have "ownership" of children: governments don't want it.

>americans unironically defending violence against children
nuke yourselves

They already do have that option, abusing your children by beating them, starving them, raping them etc is a crime.

But if you mean shit like "mommy didn't buy me enough Xbox games" then you can fuck the right off.

> father

Yeah ok, lets just assume the mother can't be horrible. Both parents are responsible, both should get shit until they know for sure who did it (In case the kid has been conditioned to blame the mom's abuse on the dad)

Give me one reason why children shouldn't have the right to vote.

>inb4 they're not emotionally mature or independent

Neither are women yet they still get to vote.

> The majority of voters are parents.

So what do you see as your way forward, considering this fact.

> Bring battery charges against the father.

Which CPS would do, if they find evidence of abuse or neglect. Police aren't going to bring charges if they don't think they'll be able to prosecute.

So what new procedure would you like to see here?

> Imprisonment or capital punishment

So a 20-year-old child brings charges of... neglect? abuse? from their upbringing, and it gets pushed through a court in trial.

Since we can conclude that the majority of jurors are coming from the same pool as voters, i.e. majority being parents, do you see much chance of a fair trial, let alone a sentence of extended jail time or capital punishment?

Ideally the kids would be out camping eating animals and fish they killed with their high powered rifles and spearguns.

The entire system of children coming back to one home is ridiculous. We should be living as communes instead of the superfluous system of being enslaved to one single male and female couple who are called your "parents".

Jesus, user. Change your social circles and stop hanging around dirt bag women.

read the lord of the flies

This assumes you can find enough willing participants that want to give up their own time to help raise other people's offspring.

I find that prospect unlikely, at best.

I'm still angry at the lack of magical flies or pig heads in that book. I was expecting some rotting pig god to do ominous shit, not just some kid hallucinating.

Not him, but what about it? It's literally fiction, not a documentary.

>city kids get stranded on an island and can't hack it
I'm not surprised.

With the primitive technology guy around, city kids would have a small town going by the time they're found now.

Or against the mother, whichever one the child says did it. Must have misread that bit of your post, sorry. If the child doesn't say which then arrest them both.

Fun fact, mothers abuse their kids at a higher rate than fathers.

That's because of the ridiculous amounts of separated families our degenerate society produces, and the mothers getting custody 99% of the time. A lot of kids just don't have any fathers around that could abuse them.

I want to believe, user, but that doesn't jive with men's higher rates of physical violence rates in general.

Got a link where I can read about it?

I can believe that the claws come out against something that can't hit back.

breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php

Women are fine hitting children, because they can't fight back. If a woman hits a man its a 50/50 of getting her teeth removed and the man going to prison, or nothing happening. Men still lose in either case, but women like to not get hit.

Correct, I didn't want existence but it was forced upon me since my parents wanted to fuck. I can't think of a realistic punishment but there is something wrong with parents having low accountability for their kids. The only action that actually raises accountability is physical harm done to a kid by the parent.

Thank you for the link.

I hit up the data mentioned in the site. None of the tables account for income, let alone for number of parents in the household.

Maybe is right, or maybe women do abuse at higher rates. But until they start reporting the number of parents in the house, or at least income levels, it's not clear.

>for income

Really getting tired of this poor shaming shit.

I've never heard of people changing their name to Chicken Mc Nigger because of a dare but I've certainly heard of people giving their children stupid fucking names, or even changing them for commercial reasons (like that that kid who was named after a gambling website to advertise it)

>grandparents and aunts don't exist

Stop being poor then.

Dude, I was using it as (very poor) indirect evidence of a single family versus double family household, since if both parents work, the higher income might indicate some useful divisions.

But since you brought it up, it's not unreasonable to begin looking at income rates and abuse rates to look for a correlation, since there is already a link between crimes, violent and non-violent, and poverty.

Statistics that show correlation and invite further research is not 'poor shaming shit', because statistics are not deterministic over individual's behavior.

You are taking a problem that is created by government and trying to fix it by adding more government. Don't do that.

No, it's more like:

>you shouldn't force me to stay inside all day, causing me to have little understanding of social interaction, leaving me with a shitty social life and thus no friends and trust issues
or
>you shouldn't kick me out when you're drunk and I bring your bad methods to your attention

Your children are not your property, you have an obligation to them but you don't own them.

>child abuse is a myth, guys