shatnuh said:
Your time has no value to anyone but yourself. If someone values your time, that's pretty neat. But no one in this world has to do so, unless they are paying you for work. You may think a parent making a decision that affects your time is inconsiderate, but they have no obligations to consider your time. You are nothing to them.
Personally would call that analogous to sociopathy, not normal parenting if you think that how other people are effected is not a consideration in your decision making. Like, jesus christ, how can you make that claim? When you make decisions that negatively effect random people you don't take that into account? You are arguing against the very concept of consideration for others.
You keep using this term arbitrary as well, in ways that makes me question if you know the definition. If a RULE or LAW is arbitrary, that doesn't mean you get disobey it without any consequence. While it may be true that your Father found 9:00 PM an arbitrary number, the fact is that bedtime is a parenting technique. While I fear linking wikipedia will be torn apart, the description given is a general idea of what bedtime consists of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime . You've presented your personal example as your reasoning behind your theoretical parenting decisions, which in itself isn't a bad example, but it does not provide enough data to make assumptions about parenting techniques across the board for younger LoL players. And it should be explained to you, that by deflecting attention from yourself by saying, "I'm not thinking at a surface selfish level" only lends to the believe that you have indeed considered this from a selfish surface level. Your example is actually the "strawman", here. It under-represents the demographics used. You and those who you went to school with are not empirical data.
Given you don't question that anything I said is arbitrary actually is:I'm pretty sure I know the definition. My argument was against valuing the arbitrary, not to discard anything arbitrary regardless of circumstance.
Also, my father "found" 9:00PM an arbitrary number? Really? That's just his opinion? No, 9:00PM as THE TIME to go to bed IS arbitrary
And I am saying that enforcing an arbitrary bed time strictly is a bad parenting technique that encourages a lack of flexibility, independence, and criticality towards the arbitrary and fails as (to me) the main thing you're supposed to be doing as a parent: training your kid for the real world. If I need to get up at 6AM every day so my plan is to go to bed around 10 I set an alarm for 6 and I fall asleep at 10:08 , 10:30, 9:58 and 9:45. That's what a normal person should do.
People should question everything , and when kids are taught to negatively effect others in order to be at bed by 9:00 they are being taught that 9:00 actually matters, that what is actually on a continuum is a binary. In another context : Everybody thinks the cop who pulls you over for being 2 over the speed limit is an asshole.
Obviously it's not empirical data but anecdotal evidence isn't totally worthless as a starting point. And no, my personal experience is not my reasoning, logic is my reasoning. also if you feel like presenting empirical data it obviously over-rides my school. I am not however, a senator reviewing legislation nor a person likely to speak at a parenting conference in the near future so I'm fine arguing at the theoretical level, no one else has risen the bar above that.
Also , of course I have considered it from a surface selfish level, but that was out of intellectual honesty against the arguments presented here that were always phrased as if I were a person effected which I am not.
TL;DR: Just because you have a hyper-inflated view on the worth of your time really means nothing to decades of results that this kind of parenting has produced.
People that feel physically uncomfortable if I tell them we should abolish the penny because 1 is a pretty,arbitrary, number that we economically waste millions on? That's a small thing, but I think that is the most egregious example of Americans avoiding a change that has absolutely no negatives but removes something arbitrary and in the real world unimportant.. You know how you brought up empirical evidence, by the way? http://www.gallup.com/poll/166553/less-recommended-amount-sleep.aspx . Not going to claim that parenting techniques are the only reason people would undersleep, but I'm not exactly amazed by how good Americans are at sleeping because of bed times.
also, stop bringing up MY time, I haven't run into a kid like this in years.
COMaestro said:
mike1921 said:
Bedtime in my mind would not mean my child is in bed at that time. It is the time needed to get ready for bed. Brushing teeth, showering possibly, changing for bed, all of which taken together does take a bit of time, after which I would expect them to be in bed. Sure, maybe read a chapter or two of a book before lights out, but basically a cool-down period before sleeping. By setting a relatively firm time for this process to begin, I can be sure my child will actually be ready to sleep at a reasonable time.
If, as in your example, I can tell the match is really in the endgame phase and it will only be a couple more minutes, I'd probably let that slide. If my child had just started the match a few minutes ago though, he's out. He should know better, and letting him finish the match, as suggested in the letter, is only going to let him know that he can get away with doing it again, even if some punishment follows afterward.
I think that's the definition of NOT getting away with it, punishment follows afterward. No one says "Oh he was sentenced with life imprisonment, he got away with it" they say "he strangled a guy and got an innocent verdict, bastard got away with it". I mean, in real life you're punished if you undersleep, you feel like shit the next day. That's what inconsiderate actions cause, consequences probably down the road. I don't understand in what context both nature and people punishing you for something is considered getting away with it.
That goes both ways though. The parents did not implicitly agree to anything either, so they are under no obligation to the other players to let their child play through the whole match. Does it suck for the players? Sure. But it sucks for the parents if they expect to have their child available to them for whatever reason, say going out to dinner, but the child can't go because he is "obligated" to finish his game first.
In this case, going out may have been unexpected, so the child can't be blamed for their time management if they didn't know they were going out to dinner ahead of time. However, in the cases where the parents pull the child out of the game due to his or her own poor time management, I'd like to think a few bans from the game would help them to learn to manage their time better. If they know they are always going to be allowed to finish their game, then any future punishment will lose its impact.
The parents implicitly agreed to take responsibility for their child. If your kid comes to my house and slams something enough to cause property damage, that's on you as well, so the way I see it your kid's obligation needs to be under your consideration.
Also, if they're going out for dinner and the kid knew before hand that's a different story than TAKE OUT THE TRASH, I WANT YOU TO BED AT 10 NOT 10:10. I'd still probably hold it.
Oh if only I trusted riot to ban people, not claming Riot's lack of moderation is on the parents.
Isn't that what you want your kid doing, considering negative consequences into his actions as opposed to just being stopped mid-way?
I say if anything your way is the one that's closer to getting away with it, they start an obligation to others that makes them undersleep and instead of letting them finish it out, and having their ass kicked later you just kick them off and what they don't really learn anything , because you stopped them from making a mistake to learn from.
