It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
It isn't so tricky as its a parents responsibility to provide everything a child needs, otherwise they shouldn't have children if they have a problem with thisKing Toasty said:It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
It's kinda funny that "Harmless unethical act" turns into "Child abuse" and "Mutually agreed payment plan between parent and child" turns into "Child labour"Sentox6 said:snip
But the kid doesn't need the $20 the parent borrowed. It's nowhere near necessary for survival. So... I don't really understand your point.bakan said:It isn't so tricky as its a parents responsibility to provide everything a child needs, otherwise they shouldn't have children if they have a problem with thisKing Toasty said:It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
Well I would argue that stealing from a child isn't harmless. Even though there are no immediate effects, it is, at the very least, teaching the child they can simply take whatever they want. You could also agrue the psyological effects it would have, but I'm not the person to talk about that.Cherry Cola said:It's kinda funny that "Harmless unethical act" turns into "Child abuse" and "Mutually agreed payment plan between parent and child" turns into "Child labour"Sentox6 said:snip
The charm of the internet.
The point is, even though a child is living 'under their parents roof' they aren't in debt to their parents and the parents aren't entitled to do what they want to do, in this case a mother just taking her childs money without asking or without any intention of paying it back.King Toasty said:But the kid doesn't need the $20 the parent borrowed. It's nowhere near necessary for survival. So... I don't really understand your point.bakan said:It isn't so tricky as its a parents responsibility to provide everything a child needs, otherwise they shouldn't have children if they have a problem with thisKing Toasty said:It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
Alright, give me your gaming consoles, your computers, any televisions you own, DVDs, Video Games... none of those are "necessary" for your survival.King Toasty said:But the kid doesn't need the $20 the parent borrowed. It's nowhere near necessary for survival. So... I don't really understand your point.bakan said:It isn't so tricky as its a parents responsibility to provide everything a child needs, otherwise they shouldn't have children if they have a problem with thisKing Toasty said:It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
You didn't just disagree with it. You attributed your moral values to my arguments and based your counter-argument on that, so in a sense all you did was respond with a Strawman argument.Flare Phoenix said:I did read their post; I just disagreed with it. In my opinion, stealing from someone is just as wrong as physically, sexually or emotionally abusing them (but that's not the discussion here).
Not completely in debt, but it'd be a dick move to always expect all the money back. Be nicer to your parents than to other people.bakan said:The point is, even though a child is living 'under their parents roof' they aren't in debt to their parents and the parents aren't entitled to do what they want to do, in this case a mother just taking her childs money without asking or without any intention of paying it back.King Toasty said:But the kid doesn't need the $20 the parent borrowed. It's nowhere near necessary for survival. So... I don't really understand your point.bakan said:It isn't so tricky as its a parents responsibility to provide everything a child needs, otherwise they shouldn't have children if they have a problem with thisKing Toasty said:It depends. If they can, maybe they should. But it is their house and you're just borrowing their food, sooo... Hmmmm. Tricky one.
That's not what I meant, and you goddamn know it. I meant it's not the parent's responsibility to pay back the kid,and I said that because it seemed like the point Bakan was making.Alright, give me your gaming consoles, your computers, any televisions you own, DVDs, Video Games... none of those are "necessary" for your survival.
I was pointing out the absurdity of you comparing stealing to child abuse and then trying to claim that my argument supported both, not saying stealing was harmless. But you clearly didn't get that.Flare Phoenix said:Well I would argue that stealing from a child isn't harmless. Even though there are no immediate effects, it is, at the very least, teaching the child they can simply take whatever they want. You could also agrue the psyological effects it would have, but I'm not the person to talk about that.Cherry Cola said:It's kinda funny that "Harmless unethical act" turns into "Child abuse" and "Mutually agreed payment plan between parent and child" turns into "Child labour"Sentox6 said:snip
The charm of the internet.