I'm so sick of...

[Humdinger]

the whole "this works for my family" BS excuse. BTW this isn't aimed at anyone, just a general bitch and maybe a debate.

I'm so sick of seeing, "I spank", "I formula feed", "I CIO" and "[insert any other parenting choice you don't agree with]" and people are soooooooooo freaking scared of being accused of attacking someone that they just pat the poster on the head and say "what ever works for you family".

I'm sorry but I do think it is bullshit, and will call bullshit. I'm all for tolerance and acceptance but where do we draw the line and say "whatever works for your family" and happy bunnies hop around with sky streaked rainbows and everyone is happy? What is the point of posting at a site if everyone agrees to disagree? What the hell is the point? Hey, I'm not saying there has to be fights, name calling or what not for people to be happy but shoot, where exactly is the line drawn when it comes to "whatever works for your family"?

[Mabel]

You may not LIKE it, but it's actually true. Of course there are some situations that are wrong no matter what - child abuse, burying the baby in the sandbox during tv shows, things of that nature LOL. But there are many parenting styles and choices that DO depend on "what works for your family" - and just because such and such worked for you, doesn't mean MY kid will respond, kwim?

[Humdinger]

Yeah that makes sense, however why would you want to be at a site where the MAJORITY of the posters all agree on a parenting style? BTW I'm not talking about this site.

[Slabobbin]

Yeah that makes sense, however why would you want to be at a site where the MAJORITY of the posters all agree on a parenting style? BTW I'm not talking about this site.

Seriously? I think the answer is quite obvious. Some people enjoy SUPPORT sites instead of debate sites. If you follow a parenting style that isn't really "mainsteam" then it is really easy to feel like a freak in real life and to feel really alone. You can long for SOMEONE, just anyone to actually understand you and where you are coming from.

[Jory]

I always found an electric fence and a tazer to be effective in parenting. Ya wanna fight about it? ;)

[Echo2]

Humdinger - You have a valid question. The simplest answer is that most people have already made up their minds as to how they are going to raise their children (and on many other subjects). So they don't want someone making sugestions or telling them they are wrong. It is the rare individual who actually opens up their mind to let different or conflicting ideas in. You see this on debate boards all the time. Someone will adamantly state that they don't spank their children. Another person will state that they spank theirs and the kids came out fine. They will either agree to disagree (like you pointed out) or they will argue untill it gets nasty because niether side is willing to consider that the other person might have a valid argument.

Anyway, that's my take on the agreeing to disagree thing. Close mindedness covered up with politness.

[Slabobbin]

Anyway, that's my take on the agreeing to disagree thing. Close mindedness covered up with politness.

I don't see it that way. I mean there are just some things that for certain individuals are flat out WRONG (for them). If someone doesn't want to spank THEIR kids then why should they be called "closed minded"? The only other alternative is for them to give in and agree with the other person. You don't have all that many options. You can either give in and agree or you can NOT agree in which case you are "agreeing to disagree". Must everyone agree with everything in order not to be "closed minded"? That would be impossible.

[Jory]

I agree with Slabobbin.

[Madelyn]

I'm so sick of seeing, "I spank", "I formula feed", "I CIO" and "[insert any other parenting choice you don't agree with]" and people are soooooooooo freaking scared of being accused of attacking someone that they just pat the poster on the head and say "what ever works for you family".

There are some things that are flat out wrong, and not subjective. So you are right, "what ever works for you" is not something I would say in those cases.

But, some things are subjective. I accept that. I am not a dogmatist. I know that my beliefs and parenting strategies are not universal. I actually could be wrong. What I do is right, for me and my child, in our home. Given another set of circumstances, for instance, if I had a wild child, with an extremely difficult, defiant temperment, who knows? Maybe I would be into stricter forms of punishment. So my methods work in our family. Maybe not in yours. What's wrong with saying that? It's the truth. Nothing wrong with being honest.

And like Slab said, agreeing to disagree is a way to diplomatically bow out of a debate without backing off of your opinion. It is not being closeminded. Far from it. At some point, the debate is over, there is nothing more to say. So rather than just not respond anymore and ignore posts, I just sum it up with "lets agree to disagree."

[Echo2]

So are you guys saying that when someome states "we'll just have to agree to disagree" they are not closing themselves off to further discussion? Because to me it says "I have made up my mind and nothing you can say to me is going to change it so I don't want to discuss it anymore".

They are politely saying that they are closed to further discussion on the subject because they have made up their minds.

[Slabobbin]

So are you guys saying that when someome states "we'll just have to agree to disagree" they are not closing themselves off to further discussion? Because to me it says "I have made up my mind and nothing you can say to me is going to change it so I don't want to discuss it anymore".

No, I'm just saying that sometimes you reach a stand still. I've not seen it happen here so much but I have been on other sites where a debate will LITERALLY go on for twenty something pages. By that time most people have repeated themselves over and over. Most anything that can be said on the topic has been said. There is honestly nothing else to say, no new "light" to shed on the subject. You are at a stand still and you still disagree with each other. What else would you suggest doing?

[Echo2]

So are you guys saying that when someome states "we'll just have to agree to disagree" they are not closing themselves off to further discussion? Because to me it says "I have made up my mind and nothing you can say to me is going to change it so I don't want to discuss it anymore".

They are politely saying that they are closed to further discussion on the subject because they have made up their minds. Sometimes, debates have to end that way. Especially when two individuals are polarized in their positions.

When I stated Closed mindedness covered up with politness, I did not intend for it to be a negative statement. I am closed minded about child abuse, equal rights, liars, etc. These are things I will NOT change my position on. And rather than argue with people who don't grasp the intricacies of my position I will agree to disagree with them. You can't explain algabra to someone who doesn't get basic math.

[Jory]

So are you guys saying that when someome states "we'll just have to agree to disagree" they are not closing themselves off to further discussion? Because to me it says "I have made up my mind and nothing you can say to me is going to change it so I don't want to discuss it anymore".

They are politely saying that they are closed to further discussion on the subject because they have made up their minds.

Well, if you discuss things to the point that you really can't discuss them anymore, doesn't it mean that the person who disagrees can see the other person's point, but STILL feel that it is not right for them? To me, it is making an informed decision. You are getting input from someone so that you are seeing that there IS another way to raise your child, but you know what is going to work for your household after reviewing what the debate has brought. OR who knows, there just might be a compromise or something that gets changed but regardless, you are still making a choice based on your lifestyle and how suggestions or parenting techniques may work or not for you.

Parenting is too individual to work the same for everyone. Like Madelyn said, there are things that are subjective and really can't be argued because of different view points, cultures, enviornments etc.

[OnederWoman]

burying the baby in the sandbox during tv shows You mean that doesn't work for you :paranoid:

There are parenting styles that truly are subjective. They may not work for me, but they work for someone else. Obviously, I think my parenting choices are the best, for my family, or I wouldn't be making them. Where the agree to disagree comes in is when someone says "well, you're wrong". So, in a sense, I am closeminded to some end.

Now obviously, some things are just flat out wrong, and that is how some people feel about spanking, cio, etc. There's something I can't continue to debate on because I get to angry to continue without getting personal, that's another time agreeing to disagree comes into play.

Am I making sense here?

[Humdinger]

Yes Onder you are making perfect sense and I agree.

[kingclick]

And then of course there is the age old use of "agree to disagree" when someone really can't support their viewpoint.

[Echo2]

On the other side of the coin is when Mary has supported her viewpoint but Susan is so stuck in her view that Mary decides it is useless to discuss it any longer so she says "agree to disagree". Sometimes Susan will acuse Mary of not being able to support her viewpoint but that probubly isn't really the case.

One good example of this is issues of morality. They differ with religion, upbringing, culture, etc. And they are supported with values and ideals stemming from religion, culture and upbringing.

Reproductive choice is a perfect example of a moral issue that is different for all people. Some believe abortion is always wrong, some believe it is wrong only in certain circumstances and some believe it is never wrong.

You can argue till the cows come home and each side can support their views with their personal religious and/or cultural reasons - but they will never come to agreement because it is a moral issue. And morality varies greatly from person to person.

THAT IS WHY MORALITY SHOULDNT BE LEGISLATED.

Just my oppinion.

[kingclick]

But many people think that murder is a moral issue. And we legislate that.

[Echo2]

I think all people in their right minds think murder is wrong. The difference is that many people don't think abortion is murder. So there we are again, trying to regulate morality - the question of weather a zygote, fetus, unborn child is considered life and therefore protected by our laws. The question is a moral issue.

King - we have differing oppinions of abortion and we've been down that road before, so maybe that is not the right subject to use to discuss morality and law. Try divorce or spanking.

[Slabobbin]

I think all people in their right minds think murder is wrong.

I disagree. I'd like to think I'm in my right mind :jester1: and I can think of instances where I don't disagree with murder.

I am against the death penality because innocent people die. I don't trust our judicial system.

But I think in some cases (where you have a really messed up abusive husband who will either kill his wife or someone is going to have to kill him, someone who gets off on torturing animals, etc.) murder isn't really so wrong.

I think the laws against murder have to be there because without them chaos would ensue, you would have a chaotic society. For me it has nothing to do with morality.

[kingclick]

But I'm not going down that abortion road. There are many people that believe that murder IS a moral issue. That any wrong is a moral issue. Stealing is a moral issue but it's being legislated.

[Echo2]

Stealing is a value issue.

Murder is different from homicide or killing in self defense or killing by state authority. Murder is a legal term and has a specific definition. Though we (the general public) use it to encompass most deaths by anothers hands.

[kingclick]

Stealing is a value issue. Which brings in morality. Because morality is about values.
Rape is a moral issue. Sexual harrassment is a HUGE moral issue.

[Echo2]

Value - something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable.
Moral - moral principles, teachings, or conduct.

Rape is not a moral issue. It is physically harmfull act to another human. A persons body is of value to them. Rape devalues the person and their body.

Sexual harrassment is a moral issue. The principles, teachings or conduct of it differs from culture religion and upbringing.

Steeling is a value issue - taking from someone something of value.

The difference is subtle but real.

[GracieMae]

Rape is not a moral issue. It is physically harmfull act to another human. A persons body is of value to them. Rape devalues the person and their body.

Exactally!

edited to add, the act of rape is immoral but it isn't a morals issue.

[kingclick]

Value - something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable.
Moral - moral principles, teachings, or conduct.

Rape is not a moral issue. It is physically harmfull act to another human. A persons body is of value to them. Rape devalues the person and their body.

Sexual harrassment is a moral issue. The principles, teachings or conduct of it differs from culture religion and upbringing.

Steeling is a value issue - taking from someone something of value.

The difference is subtle but real.
I see no difference when it comes to our laws. It is immoral to murder. That is legislating morality. In some cultures that have a different set of morals, murdering is not immorral in some circumstances.

Public nudity is a moral issue. And it's legislated.

The point I am trying to make is that MORALITY IS ALREADY LEGISLATED. So that argument really holds no water. We legislate morality and have been since the beginning of time.

I'm not saying we SHOULD increase the legislation of morality. Please don't get me wrong. I agree that religion and laws should not be mixed in our culture.

[karaokeguy]

I always found an electric fence and a tazer to be effective in parenting.

I think my mom would agree with that.... :ouch:

[Echo2]

[QUOTE=kinglozer]The point I am trying to make is that MORALITY IS ALREADY LEGISLATED. So that argument really holds no water. We legislate morality and have been since the beginning of time. [QUOTE]

Just because we are already legeslating morality does not make it right. We have owned slaves, still have capital punishment, used to torture prisoners, etc. That does not meen it was or is right.

[kingclick]

No one SAID it does make it right.

However it DOES weaken the argument against it.

If almost all of our existing laws are based on morality, we cannot argue against a new law because it's based on morality.

[Echo2]

However it DOES weaken the argument against it.

If almost all of our existing laws are based on morality, we cannot argue against a new law because it's based on morality.

How the heck does having bad laws on the books weaken the argument against not putting more bad laws on the books?

Most of our existing laws are NOT based on morality. Many people think so because we are a christian country and many of our laws are alligned with christian ideals but just because something is a christian ideal does not make it a moral issue, and visa versa.

[kingclick]

Laws against stealing are "bad" laws? Laws against murder are "bad" laws? Laws against "lying" are bad laws? Laws against rape are "bad" laws?

I would have to disagree.

And YES they are based in morality. That is where they came from moral judgements upon what is best for our society.

[Echo2]

You are still confusing morality with values.

Value - something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable.
Moral - moral principles, teachings, or conduct.

Stealing and rape or value driven laws. They deprive someone of something that is valuable.

You may be confusing ethics with morals and values.

[kingclick]

No. I don't think I am confusing something that is fundamentally related.

Our laws are based on MORAL VALUES.

You aren't grasping the concept that not ALL people value things identically. Therefore EVERY law has a piece of morality in it.

All laws all based on morality.

Give me one that isn't.