Doing this to a child is wrong

[fuckxmas]

BBC report : His said his 14-year-old daughter had not left her bedroom for four days, with meals being left outside her door, until the family learned the result was void on Thursday

This is so wrong to do to a child

Liberty is a weird word in a British context. It's very much a clarion call of the American loony right.

It is listed by our own government as a fundamental British value. You are completely mad, from what I have just read here.

And, since I can only assume you have no issue with locking up kids to protect yourself, I don’t think you are well-positioned to define the importance of liberty to all British people.

If the child doesn't agree then you send them to their room anyway. It's obvious that the child who can't agree to something this important isn't mature enough to be allowed to make up his or her own mind on this important topic.

Right. People who don’t agree with you are irrational. You have all the rights. I get it now.

I have categorically not insisted on freedom before all other values. I have asserted that freedom can be reasonably restricted to keep the child safe.

No, you insist on freedom first and last as the only value.

Hence your horror at the 'imprisonment'.

It's the underpinning of all your posts here. Everything you abhor is abhorrent to you only because it involves loss of freedom.

Fwiw, I didn't say you were bonkers. I said the alternative you propose (everyone else voluntarily taking to their rooms while potentially infections person has free use of all the rest of the house) is bonkers. It's bonkers because you are willfully disregarding covid.

No, you insist on freedom first and last as the only value.

In black and white, I don’t. You can go through an argument making things up to try to look right (because, not being your poor child, you can’t just override and bully me - shame for you), but it doesn’t make you look clever. It makes you look like you can’t read.

For the record, I didn't say people who disagree with me are irrational.
Or bonkers.

I said people who understand how covid is transmitted in an enclosed space like a home and take precautions to prevent transmission, including keeping the person who possibly has covid separated from the rest of the household, are rational.

I assume you were referring to this use of the word rational?
Are you asserting that people afraid of contracting a deadly virus through prolonged contact with a potentially infected individual in an enclosed space that is not ventilated to the degree required in the context of covid are unreasonably fearful?

It seems to me that these people are actually being completely rational. They have understood the proven science of covid transmission and have weighed the risks just as people going for brief trips to the supermarket have, in masks and latex gloves, armed with hand sanitiser, who are avoiding pubs and restaurants, and congregating in churches, cinemas, etc.

Are the people you think should take to their rooms in order to preserve the alleged British value of liberty for the 14 year old being irrational? If so, why?

It makes you look like you can’t read.

LOL.

This from the woman who thinks I called her bonkers.

And thinks I said 'irrational' here:
It's obvious that the child who can't agree to something this important isn't mature enough to be allowed to make up his or her own mind on this important topic.

If you're not concerned about freedom then why are you so het up about this alleged imprisonment?

Are the people you think should take to their rooms in order to preserve the alleged British value of liberty for the 14 year old being irrational? If so, why?

I think they are perfectly rational in their desire to lock up potentially exposed people. ‘Rational’ in the pursuit of their own interest only. Unfortunately, if they are prepared to do this against their child’s will, they are also breaching that child’s rights in what, to me, is an unacceptable fashion. However rational, it’s not their right to lock people up to protect themselves. It IS their right to isolate themselves, and, since the people advocating this don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, surely they are the better placed people to go to their rooms? They don’t mind so why aren’t they just doing it? Why do they prefer to impose this on an unwilling kid instead?

If you're not concerned about freedom then why are you so het up about this alleged imprisonment?

I did not say I am not concerned about freedom. Evidently I am. But some of us can hold more than one thing in our minds at a time. Some of us understand that sometimes things need to be balanced (freedom versus safety of the child). More trouble in the reading department for you, it seems.

You need to explain the unreasonableness of this 'imprisonment' to me. In your answer, please discuss why the teenager can't just stay in school in the first place. Why can't people just stay in school at close quarters with others, inhaling and exhaling the same air, using the same loos, singing together in a choir, knocking into each other playing hockey, etc?

At the risk of repetition, can you explain the reason the child isn't in school?

Please refer to your acknowledgement that adults can decide that some restrictions can be put in place for a child's own good.

At the risk of repetition, can you explain the reason the child isn't in school?

Because that’s the law. We have had our liberty restricted, by law, to a level where the government can insist we stay at home. That does NOT confer a right to lock someone up in a bedroom. Where does the law say it does?

Please refer to your acknowledgement that adults can decide that some restrictions can be put in place for a child's own good.

And no. It’s there in black and white. If you can’t read it, or can’t be bothered, tough. I am not your secretary.

I did not say I am not concerned about freedom. Evidently I am. But some of us can hold more than one thing in our minds at a time. Some of us understand that sometimes things need to be balanced (freedom versus safety of the child).

Denial and excellent use of double negative apart, I feel we are making progress here.

Can you hold three things in your mind at once?
For instance:
Freedom vs. safety of the child vs. health of the rest of the household?

It seems to me that one final push will get you there.

Because that’s the law. We have had our liberty restricted, by law, to a level where the government can insist we stay at home.

Did the government do this unreasonably and in a vacuum?

And there is that right wing American term again.

Please refer to your acknowledgement that adults can decide that some restrictions can be put in place for a child's own good.

I really want to see your thoughts on this. Fully baked this time.

Freedom vs. safety of the child vs. health of the rest of the household?

Of course I can. And it is not your decision - you have no right - as a parent to lock up a child for the protection of the rest of the household. You can withdraw to your own space instead, but no, you don’t have a legitimate power to confine a child inside their own home. It’s abusive.

So although I (unlike you, it seems) am able to weigh up multiple factors, that doesn’t mean I am always going to agree that the factor is a valid reason for breaching someone’s rights in this way. I have considered and rejected that argument.

And I am still interested in how far you would go if they did not comply. Locks on the door? Tying them up? If not, why not?

Why do you think, anyway, that it is reasonable for you to insist that a child goes to a place where they might be infected (school), and then, when they potentially are infected, lock them up?

Would you treat a partner like this, or just a child? Would you accept someone treating you like this?

...since the people advocating this don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, surely they are the better placed people to go to their rooms? They don’t mind so why aren’t they just doing it? Why do they prefer to impose this on an unwilling kid instead?

You keep on ignoring the facts about covid transmission.
You have never referred to how it is transmitted or problems generated by its highly contagious nature.
You have never referred to sanitising of possibly contaminated indoor environments or ventilation of indoor environments in the context of covid.
Your sole focus here is on 'freedom', or that word 'liberty' you keep on inserting. Why is that?

Why did the government enact the law that allows restrictions of personal freedom?

mathanxiety

Liberty is not an American concept. Heard of the English Civil War? The French Revolution? No?

I am not getting anything out of your conversation right now, Math. I have to go out now. Please refrain from illegally imprisoning anyone while I am gone. I will come back.

I really want to see your thoughts on this. Fully baked this time.

You’ve seen them. You just ignored them or couldn’t read them. 😂

since the people advocating this don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, surely they are the better placed people to go to their rooms? They don’t mind so why aren’t they just doing it? Why do they prefer to impose this on an unwilling kid instead?

And this question will still be here when I do come back.

Surely if she's unwell she'd not want to get out of bed anyway, though most teenagers probably don't need an excuse. I remember having flu as a child and my mum bringing me food and drinks while I lay in bed and watched tv or slept it off and that's what I've done for my dc. Is that not what happens when you're ill anyway, pandemic aside.

You can withdraw to your own space instead, but no, you don’t have a legitimate power to confine a child inside their own home. It’s abusive.

That completely ignores the nature of covid.

Why are you ignoring that really important element of all this?

Would a child feel good if a parent allowed her to pass on a fatal dose of covid to her beloved granny out of some overweening concern for the great British value of liberty?
Surely protecting the teenager from unintended consequences of choices is a parent's job?
Is it abusive to allow a teenager to place her freedom above all other values?
Is it abusive to create a condition which would cause an outcome the teen would regret for the rest of her life?

If a teen is determined to have a baby at age 14, how far can the parent go in order to prevent that?

Of course I can. And it is not your decision - you have no right - as a parent to lock up a child for the protection of the rest of the household. You can withdraw to your own space instead, but no, you don’t have a legitimate power to confine a child inside their own home. It’s abusive.

If my 14yo goes out, does something stupid/ gets into a fight at school/ comes home drunk, leading to a punishment of a weekend spent in his room (food delivered) with removal of tech as punishment for his foolishness is this abusive?

Oh ffs people let it die. That flav will keep flaving all day and it keeps popping up on my "on" threads🙄

She will not get it.
Like some people don't get that 5g didn't spread corona.

Dang it. Hiding this.

leading to a punishment of a weekend spent in his room (food delivered) with removal of tech as punishment for his foolishness is this abusive?

Yes. Why does he need to stay in his room? You think access to your own home is some sort of privilege? Do you think you are an administrator in one of Her Majesty’s Prisons? The law can lock people in a cell. You can’t. And how many times are you prepared to do this? For how long? How often? Where is the line - for you - between fair ‘punishment’ of a young person and illegal detention?

Anyway, I really do have to go out. Will come back later and hope you lot have screwed your heads on a bit better.

• since the people advocating this don’t seem to think it’s a big deal, surely they are the better placed people to go to their rooms? They don’t mind so why aren’t they just doing it? Why do they prefer to impose this on an unwilling kid instead?

And this question will still be here when I do come back.*

Because it's far more logical in terms of containment of the virus for the person potentially infected to be the one to isolate, rather than shedding virus all over the house. It keeps it to one room.

Because there are other children to care for. In our case one who is ECV, so is it okay to confine them to their room? As it's the only alternative if their sibling is infected and has free run of the house.

Because a 14yo won't clean as thoroughly as their parent will. Some may not be able to cook all that well either.

Because the vast majority of teenagers would much prefer to be the ones being waited on rather than having to totally fend for themselves.

Because if you have an infected person wandering all over the house, meaning you stay in your room who provides food? The person with the virus you're trying to avoid catching?

I could keep going.

Fortunately, my kids have compassion and care about the whole family and not just themselves. So there'd be no forcing here, just responsible kids taking to their rooms and sending regular "bring me snacks" texts.

Maybe that's why people aren't getting your argument @flaviaritt This would never be an issue for them with their children because they have decent, caring and considerate kids who wouldn't need to be forced into confinement.