> You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
> Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society.
What do you think should be my goal?
For my part, my goal is to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs that I hold. In part I do this for their benefit (so that they can be autonomous adults) and partly to shape future society. But perhaps most of all I share impart these values and beliefs because I value and believe them. No parent can help but to impart their values and beliefs. The only question is whether you do so consciously or not.
> You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about.
Again, my apologies, but I really don't get what you are trying to convey. What does this have to do with compelling young children to eat their vegetables or restricting a teenager's access to lurid content on the internet? Perhaps you have different examples in mind?
> Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it.
I have a moral obligation to help mold the plastic elements of my child's psyche (much of which is admittedly not malleable) to serve their best interests and the interests of the society into which they will enter.
> I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
> Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society.
What do you think should be my goal?
For my part, my goal is to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs that I hold. In part I do this for their benefit (so that they can be autonomous adults) and partly to shape future society. But perhaps most of all I share impart these values and beliefs because I value and believe them. No parent can help but to impart their values and beliefs. The only question is whether you do so consciously or not.
> You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about.
Again, my apologies, but I really don't get what you are trying to convey. What does this have to do with compelling young children to eat their vegetables or restricting a teenager's access to lurid content on the internet? Perhaps you have different examples in mind?
> Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it.
I have a moral obligation to help mold the plastic elements of my child's psyche (much of which is admittedly not malleable) to serve their best interests and the interests of the society into which they will enter.
> I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
Of course, no offense taken.