dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON
reply to I_H8_Spam

Re: Parental responsibility

I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children.


I_H8_Spam

join:2004-03-10
St Catharines, ON
If I'm at work, and my child skips school and does this action. How am I directly liable?

I can set rules, boundaries, morals; but my child is an individual.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius


OverrRyde

join:2007-04-10
Waterdown, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:

I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children.

Agreed, although 500$ seems a bit steep for a 15$ pair of possibly plastic earrings. Also, this would be a perfect oppotunity to teach the kid a lesson too. Make him do some community service, possible work/help at the store to "pay off" the item.

This makes me think that this is how Voltage would want to proceed in their fillings! Send a threatning letter demanding money and hoping to scare people into paying, when bottom line is, they might not even sue anyone just based on simple math. cost vs reward not worth it.

EDIT: hmm one thing i noticed is the article doesnt mention the kids age. If he is 15 for example, this is the perfect time to nip any future criminal activity mind before he becomes an adult. Teach him that these actions are bad and they have consequences.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:

I say the parents should be held responsible. I would expect the same with my children.

I'd say under 16 years of age, the parent is responsible.


I_H8_Spam

join:2004-03-10
St Catharines, ON
I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.
--
AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs.
WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius


donoreo
Premium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON
said by I_H8_Spam:

I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.

That seems reasonable.

Of course many parents would not go for that.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to I_H8_Spam
said by I_H8_Spam:

If I'm at work, and my child skips school and does this action. How am I directly liable?

Because you raised yourself a delinquent.

If you want them to be treated as an individual adult - then full brunt of adult laws should apply. In other words this child's future is effectively over before it begins.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Because you raised yourself a delinquent.

Fine then. So I take it that when one considers that children are sent to school for eight hours a day and spend just as much time there as they do with their parents, you are of the opinion that a school should be held just as liable for "raising" a delinquent as well, right?


Juggernaut
Irreverent or irrelevant?
Premium
join:2006-09-05
Kelowna, BC
kudos:2
You may not be far off on that statement.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

Fine then. So I take it that when one considers that children are sent to school for eight hours a day and spend just as much time there as they do with their parents, you are of the opinion that a school should be held just as liable for "raising" a delinquent as well, right?

This is the problem with Socialism, you get this idea that someone other then you is responsible for what happens in your life.

Assuming the school is instructing the children to commit crimes, yes it's your responsibility as a parent to ensure they follow the law.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Assuming the school is instructing the children to commit crimes, yes it's your responsibility as a parent to ensure they follow the law.

You are legally required to send your children to school and anyone who does not is subject to criminal sanctions. How can you be held liable for their conduct when you are legally required to entrust them to someone else's custody for half the waking day? How can do you justify a parent being 100% responsible for the conduct of a delinquent child when that parent isn't even legally allowed to keep custody of them the entire day?

And really, before you go throwing around the word "socialism" like some kind of smartass, you could do us all a favour and actually know what it is before using the term and realize it has zero do to with topics such as this.


agtle

@teksavvy.com
said by Gone:

How can do you justify a parent being 100% responsible for the conduct of a delinquent child when that parent isn't even legally allowed to keep custody of them the entire day?

I would respectfully argue that it is the parents basic responsibility to instill a particular set of values in their children; and teach their children to understand their educational experience in a certain context. I, for one, do not hand off all responsibility to the school system.

Teachers can influence children, but proper parenting should count more.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

And really, before you go throwing around the word "socialism" like some kind of smartass, you could do us all a favour and actually know what it is before using the term and realize it has zero do to with topics such as this.

Absolutely it does - it's part of a mindset that society shares the responsibility for each other's well being. In this case, apparently it includes raising each other's children through school.

I'm going to assume you haven't raised any children to adulthood. So with that in mind I'll let you spend some time reflecting on this question. If a teacher has more influence over my own child then I do, am I a good parent?

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

If you answer yes to that question, something has already gone terribly wrong in your parenting attempts.

To which, you have already proven that something went terrible, terribly wrong with your education in those schools that your parents were legally required to send you for most of the day during weekdays, which in turn has produced a rather skewed and simplistic understanding of the world around you.

But whatever, simplistic one-dimensional thinking and intellectual dishonesty - either intentionally or through ignorance - is particularly rife among people who blame everything on "socialism" without even knowing that socialism actually is.

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

If you have raised children to adulthood, I hope they have had the benefit of a better education and a better depth of understanding of the world around them than you have.

If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic. If you wish to look at the single largest difference between someone who is successful at something versus not - you'll note the key difference is who they hold accountable for their successes or failures. Until you move forward in your life with that key understanding, you're doomed to mediocrity at best.

Understanding the nuance behind mindset and what Marx actually wrote is the difference between an evaluative understanding versus a textual one. While Socialism at it's root was intended as an economic system, in modern days it's been perverted to represent a ground of people who think their environment to provide for them.

We obfuscate the fact that the only one responsible for anything in this world is you.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

And socialism is still an economic system. Period. Claiming it is anything beyond that goes back to the intellectual dishonesty I mentioned earlier. Just because someone repeatedly says something untrue does not suddenly make it true.

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

said by Gone:

Wrong. There are plenty of things other than just "you" that can be responsible for the problems in your life that are beyond your control. Acknowledging this fact of life does not lead to failure. It is only how you respond to those issues and tackle those problems that is your responsibility alone and the response itself is a direct reflection on your character and your success in life, not the problem.

You have no control of those things, the only thing you can control is you. So everything outside of you is completely irrelevant. If you want to be happy and successful you need to focus only on you.

Simple example: There is no food in this area because of drought.

Solution: You migrate to greener pastures.

Problem: The school I send my child too is training bad habits about how to set goals.

Solution: You spend 2 hours per evening re-training your child on goal setting.

See how that works?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

1 edit
said by CanadianRip:

Fair enough - but it still doesn't represent the cultural understanding of the word. Unless you're one of those people that believes grammar and language does not change.

No, I am merely one of those people who believes that people can't use their own opinions and modify a word to mean something that it doesn't actually mean.

said by Gone:

See how that works?

To quote,

said by CanadianRip:
If you blame anyone other then yourself for anything in your life, you're already setup with a mindset of failure on any topic.
I can blame my lack of food on the drought all I want, and I can bitch and moan and whine about it. The dought isn't my fault. It is only my response that I have direct control. This does not mean I'm not allowed to bitch about the drought, though, and my bitching does not mean I have failed.

A better example is this: Someone who is physically or mentally disabled and unable to work isn't the one to blame for the fact that they now rely on government assistance to live and are unable to work. Living within their means and attempting to remain relevant and contribute what they can to their community is the only thing directly under their control in their life. The fact that this is all they can accomplish due to circumstances beyond their control does not make them a failure.

Edit - to which, it doesn't matter what you do with your child if you're sending them right back to the source of a problem and have no ability to change that despite all your efforts. The end result does not mean you have failed, no matter what you may think.

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

Get it? Or does such pragmatism make me a socialist?

Not really, because in your original comment you where stating it's the schools fault and not the parents which seems to contradict what you're saying in this post.

We can all waste our time bitching and complaining, God knows I do enough of it. But it's always a mistake. End of the day whatever the circumstance is, it's our fault.

If you're a quadriplegic and you want to be the worlds fastest triathlete, it's your fault for attempting such an incredible and you should be more realistic. You will likely fail at this task.

There's a big difference between complaining, and assigning accountability. Absolutely where you assign accountability determines success or failure. If you're not accountable for something, it's never on you to take care of business.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Not really, because in your original comment you where stating it's the schools fault and not the parents which seems to contradict what you're saying in this post.

In the case of legal liability when determining who should be supervising a child to ensure that they don't go steal something, the school should be responsible - absolutely. The parents, after all, entrusted the school with the supervision of their child during the day. Whether or not you like that is irrelevant.

The parents would have no ability to supervise that child during that time to ensure they behave properly, regardless of whatever training or supervision the end up providing them at home.

If your mind is already made up and you are unable to see this beyond an issue of black and white, I obviously cannot help you further.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

The parents would have no ability to supervise that child during that time to ensure they behave properly, regardless of whatever training or supervision the end up providing them at home.

A good parent doesn't need to follow around their children to get them to obey laws. A good parent would gladly accept accountability for such a lapse in parenting that their child would shop lift.

Personally if any of my children had ever done that, I would deal with it and reimburse the store and be embarrassed about the entire incident, not cry to the media like some baby. Then my child would deal with the appropriate punishment.

Go ahead and blame the school, but ask yourself how all the other kids at that same school that day managed to stay there and not commit a crime. Then remind me how it's the schools fault this happened.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Personally if any of my children had ever done that, I would deal with it and reimburse the store and be embarrassed about the entire incident, not cry to the media like some baby. Then my child would deal with the appropriate punishment.

Haha bullshit. The sanctimonious ones tend to be the biggest hypocrites when it comes to following through themselves what they demand others to do. Based on all the self-righteous demagoguery you've shared with us here, there is absolutely nothing you could ever say to convince me otherwise.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
said by Gone:

Haha bullshit. The sanctimonious ones tend to be the biggest hypocrites when it comes to following through themselves what they demand others to do. Based on all the self-righteous demagoguery you've shared with us here, there is absolutely nothing you could ever say to convince me otherwise.

Really, so you would go advertise to the media your child is a shoplifter. The shameless there alone has me shake my head, that's not sanctimony at all. I mean, honestly who wouldn't be ashamed of that? Seriously walk into a crowded room and announce your child is a shoplifter and tell me how proud of that statement you would be. Tell me you'd have an expectation of them patting you on the shoulder saying, there there -it's all the schools fault.

You can assume all you like about me - it's pointless to discuss anything when all the other side has left is hurling unfounded insults based on supposition.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by CanadianRip:

Really, so you would go advertise to the media your child is a shoplifter. The shameless there alone has me shake my head, that's not sanctimony at all. I mean, honestly who wouldn't be ashamed of that? Seriously walk into a crowded room and announce your child is a shoplifter and tell me how proud of that statement you would be. Tell me you'd have an expectation of them patting you on the shoulder saying, there there -it's all the schools fault.

No, I wouldn't advertise it, but I wouldn't allow someone to extort me when they have no legal grounds or means to do so. Your comments about being so very sure you would provide restitution to the company if your child was caught shoplifting is what makes your comment sanctimonious and worth nothing more than a laugh. No one - not even you, no matter what you say - would pay $500-$900 to a company in addition to the legal sanctions their child already faced.

said by CanadianRip:

when all the other side has left is hurling unfounded insults based on supposition.

Calling someone an asshole, a douchebag or a dumbass is an insult. Pointing out that someone is being over the top and laying it on thick with their comments is not an insult, no matter how much you may not like it. You would do well to learn the difference between the two, because crying about non-existent insults only furthers my point about laying it on thick and being over the top.

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to donoreo
said by donoreo:

said by I_H8_Spam:

I would say 12, before which the YOA doesn't apply so the responsibility should fall to the Guardian. Over 12 then you have the YOA and Crown to deal with.

That seems reasonable.

Of course many parents would not go for that.

How old is Grade 9? I was looking after other people's children at that age. Responsible enough to babysit = responsible enough to pay restitution for my crimes.

Under 12 it should default / parents should counter sue the appointed responsible guardian at the time (which may not be parents).


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by graniterock:

Responsible enough to babysit = responsible enough to pay restitution for my crimes.

Funny how people seem so gung-ho about teenagers being responsible enough to be accountable for their actions when it comes to criminal sanctions and the restitution associated with them, yet these same people rarely would ever find these same kids responsible enough to drink alcohol, vote for their elected representatives or enter into a legally-binding contract for goods and services.

Yeah. Funny that.


CanadianRip

join:2009-07-15
Oakville, ON
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

You would do well to learn the difference between the two, because crying about non-existent insults only furthers my point about laying it on thick and being over the top.

Well you've already suggested I'm uneducated which is somehow not an insult - so obviously learning this would be beyond me.

said by Gone:

No one - not even you, no matter what you say - would pay $500-$900 to a company in addition to the legal sanctions their child already faced.

Nope - wouldn't have to, I would have dealt with it instead of avoiding accountability. The Pharmacist wouldn't have felt they had to deal with it through a lawsuit. End of the day I can almost guarantee you that that's all the Franchise owner was after. The laissez-faire parents to actually do their job and parent their children.

Do you think for a second if this parent showed up with the child made them pay for the stolen merchandise and apologize and promise never to enter the store that the owner would waste his or her time with any of this?

Everything else out of your keyboard has been a bunch of specious non-sense trying to defend your absurd position. Because if you're sincere in your belief that its all the School's fault - I really hope you don't and choose never have children.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
said by CanadianRip:

Do you think for a second if this parent showed up with the child made them pay for the stolen merchandise and apologize and promise never to enter the store that the owner would waste his or her time with any of this?

It may affect the motivations of the franchisee but I think these are corporate decisions based on fiscal recovery beyond the pharmacist's intentions.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to CanadianRip
said by CanadianRip:

Nope - wouldn't have to, I would have dealt with it instead of avoiding accountability.

You're operating on the assumption that you would have even known any of this was going on until you got a call from the local police service advising you that your child was being charged with theft under $5000 and to come to the station to pick him/her up.

At that point, you're SOL as far as "dealing with it" goes, and your assumption that you could is nothing but hot air that goes to my previous points about sanctimonious comments that you would never follow through on. Sure, you can go to the store, talk to the manager, apologize, and they'll smile say it's okay blah blah blah but when it comes down to it, as peterboro already mentioned, you're still going to get that extortion letter in the mail - a letter for which I have no doubt in my mind you would never follow through on.

said by CanadianRip:

Everything else out of your keyboard has been a bunch of specious non-sense trying to defend your absurd position. Because if you're sincere in your belief that its all the School's fault - I really hope you don't and choose never have children.

... and everything out of your keyboard has been nothing but a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit from someone who blames all the ills of the world on "socialism" and does not understand the realities of the way corporations and the legal system work. It's not the 1960s anymore.

And I do have a son, he's wonderful and in my mind better and smarter than any children you could ever have or hope to have.