I agree generally but overly simplified. i.e. A brainwashed child can be talked into actions for which 100% responsibility cannot be ascribed. Such nuance typically begets victim blaming, but it needs to be said more often than it is.
.. which strikes to the core of the issue doesn’t it?
You have the right to speak freely
I have the right to listen or ignore
You are responsible for your speech
I am responsible for my reaction
Two resolution paths for all conflict:
- dialogue or
- violence
I prefer the former to the latter
Therefore free speech must remain a tool for those who seek dialogue over violence, even at the cost of understanding that it will also be used to incite hatred, to vilify and to marginalise
Keep speaking nostr:nprofile1qqstm84k2lp9knmvmf5gw88zvfvar7duvfpqfplryfystdn55ug2gkspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejszxthwden5te0dehhxarj9ecxcetzvd5xz6tw9ehhyecfhruz5 🫂🧡
Discussion
Children, by definition, do not have full agency or responsibility; as a parent it’s on you to impart these important and basic truths to your own children
Childhood is about exploring the world and learning, and learning requires a feedback mechanism; choices -> consequences
It’s traumatic to watch your grown children make poor choices and suffer the horrendous consequences .. but free will must encompass this
If a child is defined by those who do not have full agency, than many octogenarians die as children. If the definition of 'child' is one who does not have 'full agency or responsibility,' then some would argue that there are elementary school attendees that aren't children.
That any given parent has a responsibility to impart agency and responsibility to the child is a given; but our philosophy of action must include a realistic recognition that *all parents fail to some degree* and that 'agency' 'responsibility' 'adult' are all ultimately imperfectly defined.
Choices beget consequences, but one cannot rationally argue that all consequences are deserved.
Although I would agree that instilling (allowing to develop) agency and responsibility is paramount, and there is a point at which detachment or acceptance is rational, to watch consequences suffered by loved ones in that name is to argue against helping others entirely. Too often the refuge of those who want to *avoid* the responsibility of being a part of the support network for others.
Just thoughts, not accusations.