# Parents are responsible for what their children do, yes or no?



## V-te (Sep 10, 2009)

Well guys, 
I am writing an essay for English class on this topic, and was curious to see your thoughts. I am pretty sure our parents have/had an influence with our cubing, so I want to know what you think. 

My own personal opinion, is that parents are responsible up to around the age of 8, when the kid begins to understand reason. Once the kid understand reason, the parents are responsible up to the point where they can't tell a kid whether he should tell them some secrets or not(eg, being bullied, questions about themselves). As soon as the kid hits puberty, the parents become much more responsible, although never again as they were. They can give the kids "The talk" and give them advice, but they won't have control on how they use the given advice. Parents are responsible for teaching kids right from wrong, but they can't be responsible for the kids actions.

That's what I think. What is your opinion?


----------



## Kian (Sep 10, 2009)

This really can't be a "yes or no" question. It's really always going to be in the huge "somewhat" range. Parents obviously play a role and are partially responsible for their child's actions. This depends on the age, the context of the action, and many, many other factors. I think you'd have to look at a particular situation in order to quantify this.


----------



## V-te (Sep 10, 2009)

Kian said:


> This really can't be a "yes or no" question. Parents obviously play a role and are partially responsible for their child's actions. This depends on the age, the context of the action, and many, many other factors. I think you'd have to look at a particular situation in order to quantify this.



This is true. But in the overall situation. 

I know kids who have parents that are alcoholics are more likely to be alcoholics themselves, and kids who have parents that are smokers are more likely to smoke themselves, but in the end it's the kid's decision. 

So parents have a role in the mental aspect of the kids.


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 10, 2009)

The English teacher is just trying to see if you can make a good argument. Take any side you like as long as you back it up with good evidence.
Stop trying to trick us into doing your homework.


----------



## V-te (Sep 10, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> The English teacher is just trying to see if you can make a good argument. Take any side you like as long as you back it up with good evidence.
> Stop trying to trick us into doing your homework.



I'm not tricking anyone, I have a solid ground on where I stand, but I want to know what my fellow cubers have to say. We are cubers, because we are people who like challenges, and many of us became that way because of our parents pushing us to do our best.


----------



## Andreaillest (Sep 10, 2009)

Hmm. Well in my opinion, it doesn't matter what age a child or teen is. Parents still play a huge role in their lives. Parents are suppose to teach them from right and wrong, no matter what age. Some parents stiil rely on television and school to teach their children. That's not parenting at all.

Of course anyone over the age of 10 have a sense of reason and responsibility. We can assume they know better when they do something wrong. When they know they're doing something wrong but do it anyway then it's their fault and should take responsibility. However, it is up to the parent to discipline or punish their kids of their wrong doing. A child will continue to misbehave if they have a parent who won't bat an eyelash.

All in all, parents play a role, no matter what age they are. However, a teen should have reason and be rewarded or punished on their decisions. If they don't then the parent should take it upon themselves to tell them what they're doing is wrong.

I wish I could have responded better, but I'm a little tired now. I'm probably missing a thought or so.


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 10, 2009)

Very yes.

If you think about it quantifiably, of course, the parents spend at least 3 years raising the child and even more feeding and living with the child, before sending them off to school.

If you consider the sheer time spent with the children, the answer is quite obvious.

However, i answered somewhat, because as they approach the teen years, they take life into their own hands. (at least the responsible ones, im 17 by the way)


----------



## shelley (Sep 10, 2009)

Sure, one of the responsibilities of a parent is to teach their kids good values and make sure they can function as a part of society. However, even the best parent can't monitor their children's behavior 24/7. As a child grows older and learns to reason for himself, he also starts to take responsibility for his actions.


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 10, 2009)

I voted yes, but a "mostly" option could fit better.

Obviously, it depend on the age of the children : the older they are, the less responsible parents are.


----------



## V-te (Sep 10, 2009)

Single parents have more of an influence on the child too.... because the child only has one person to look up to.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 10, 2009)

Parents are partially responsible. I think some of the long-term, large-scale attributes of someone's behavior are shaped by the people who raised them. But there are also a lot of things that parents are definitely not responsible for - things like alcohol/drug use, rebelliousness, how someone acts toward authorities, and sexual preference. As much as parents might like to change some of those things, no amount of talking with their child will do that... it's just going to make the child dislike them (more). I think the things that people typically think parents ought to be responsible for are exactly the kind of things that parents can't affect.


----------



## aparthia (Sep 10, 2009)

Children don't learn to think abstract untill they reach an age around 12. Before that point the parents play a huge role regarding manners, moral and ethical standpoints. When the child gets legally punishable, the parents have no responsibility for they child's actions. They have most certainly played a role regardless in the moral value of it's actions, but it is the 'child' that chooses to act.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 10, 2009)

The answer to this question is always going to be somewhat.

One thing that really irritates me is when people seem to have no understanding of what is socially acceptable and what is not. For a cubing example, it is not polite to rummage through somebody's bag (unless you have been told it's okay) to play with their puzzles. At a recent competition a kid who was about 12 did this to my stuff and while I said he could borrow a 3x3 for his solves, he was them removing my stuff and taking it all around the place (both inside and outside the venue). His parents were also at the venue and could see what was going on. In this situation, it is pretty clear that they should maybe suggest to their son that this isn't really very polite. It was their "responsibility" in this case, and while they were at it, they could have taught him to say "please" and "thank you"... jeez.

I would like to think I was very well brought up by my parents and know that if I had behaved like some of the kids I see in public now, it would not have been tolerated. An example: I was queuing up to buy a game recently and there was a guy also in the queue with three sons who were running riot in the shop. They were fighting, punching, kicking, bumping into people and behaving completely inappropriately, yet the parent just seemed to turn a blind eye to it when it was clearly in his view. If my kid was causing an inconvenience to another adult I would be absolutely mortified, thinking it was reflecting both badly on the child but also my parenting skills, but maybe others do not agree with this?

Before a child really has a lot of freedom for themselves, it is obviously the responsibility of the parent to guide them, but as they get their own lives and gain new influences it's very hard to control this. This is especially true during one's teenage years in which rebellion is the big thing, no matter how small. However, if a child has been well brought up to that point, it's naturally going to have a large effect on them in later adult life.

Now living my "own" life as it were I can see that I have become some kind of fusion of my parents and have gained the qualities that were instilled in me. Interestingly, my behaviours are also very similar to those of my parents (except the cubing). In my opinion parents are completely responsible for their kids up until they gain more freedom, and of course once they've left home not at all. While they can't hold direct responsibility over their kids at that point, it would be hoped that the influence they'd had earlier in their lives would have shaped them to be respectful individuals.


----------



## V-te (Sep 10, 2009)

Almost the exact words to my essay. Lol. Except my essay has much more paragraphs. Nice to see our similar points of view.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 10, 2009)

qqwref said:


> But there are also a lot of things that parents are definitely not responsible for - things like alcohol/drug use



I believe that parents can definitely have an influence on whether their child uses alcohol or not.

If they are heavy drinkers/act horrible while drunk, the child is more likely to see this as a reason not to start drinking. On the other hand, if they are light drinkers/can handle alcohol well, the child probably more likely to see alcohol as a harmless drug and start drinking as well.

Note: I have absolutely no statistics whatsoever to back this up and did no research except for personal experience and some thought. So don't call me out on it ;D.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 10, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > But there are also a lot of things that parents are definitely not responsible for - things like alcohol/drug use
> ...



I'm not sure about that point of view.

I think there are two drastically different outcomes on one single action. If a parent comes home extremely drunk every night and behaves abusively, a child is just as likely to follow in the parent's footsteps, assuming that this is acceptable behaviour, as he is to completely avoid alcohol as he doesn't want to replicate the behaviour. That's when the parental responsibility becomes quite a difficult line to draw.

EDIT: One could actually take into consideration the age of the child at this point. The younger the child is, the more likely he is to exaggerate or forget details of what happened, making his own interpretation affect his actions later in life. If the child is old enough to see the actions of the parents for what they really are, this surely has a different effect.


----------



## Escher (Sep 10, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > But there are also a lot of things that parents are definitely not responsible for - things like alcohol/drug use
> ...



From the opposite perspective (with just as much evidence ;-)), I think that children take the behaviour of their parents as normality and copy it. Children see heavy drinking and think that that's the norm, just like children that are exposed to domestic violence between their parents are more likely to commit/not stand up to domestic violence later in life.
Regardless of the negative consequences of the actions of their parents, children are still likely to consider it normal and copy it.

EDIT: Dammit, I started writing that about 12 minutes ago and then left it for a bit, posted, and Charlie ninja'd me.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 10, 2009)

Escher said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Yeah, I think I agree with it. It's not necessarily the behaviour itself that affects the child, it's the way in which people react to it. A completely fictional example: A father is completely drunk and abusive and the mother is constantly trying to stop it, sending the father to rehab for instance. A child in this situation would understand that while drinking to this level happens, it's not good. Take the same situation where the mother isn't as concerned and puts up with the situation, a child isn't going to understand that it's wrong are they?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 10, 2009)

CharlieCooper said:


> Yeah, I think I agree with it. It's not necessarily the behaviour itself that affects the child, it's the way in which people react to it. A completely fictional example: A father is completely drunk and abusive and the mother is constantly trying to stop it, sending the father to rehab for instance. A child in this situation would understand that while drinking to this level happens, it's not good. Take the same situation where the mother isn't as concerned and puts up with the situation, a child isn't going to understand that it's wrong are they?



I guess there's a huge dependence on the age and personal situation for this.


----------



## Twofu2 (Sep 10, 2009)

Yeah i agree. You would think a 13 year old would know better than to play with fire and burn up the house


----------

