Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I looked at "policy", considered the source, and ignored it. Submariner was a military lifer. That's not a job with payroll taxes. He gets a federal pension, not a Social Security check. The anti-double dip provisions likely exclude him from ever receiving a dime of Social Security. It's an alternate universe where he wouldn't need to have any understanding of the Social Security system.
In fairness to military personnel, I believe they pay into the SS system.
I looked at "policy", considered the source, and ignored it. Submariner was a military lifer. That's not a job with payroll taxes. He gets a federal pension, not a Social Security check. The anti-double dip provisions likely exclude him from ever receiving a dime of Social Security. It's an alternate universe where he wouldn't need to have any understanding of the Social Security system.
I pay into SS, when I reach that age I may apply to begin receiving SS benefits. Just like anyone else who decides to pay into SS.
I agree; I think 13 year olds need supervision. However, it is legal for that 13 year old to be babysitting younger children.
The problem here is that millions of years of evolution would tell the story that people are perfectly able to look after themselves when they reach puberty (with exceptions perhaps). I guess parents are worried about things that have a 0.0001% chance (or whatever it is) of happening while ignoring the much larger risks that they create - such as delayed life experience. Heck, if you're going to worry about that, why not worry that overburdened parents are going to get too little sleep due to having to look after kids so much, and as a result have a car accident and get their kids injured? It doesn't make sense to do something to avoid one type of risk and in the process accept a bigger risk!
The problem here is that millions of years of evolution would tell the story that people are perfectly able to look after themselves when they reach puberty (with exceptions perhaps). I guess parents are worried about things that have a 0.0001% chance (or whatever it is) of happening while ignoring the much larger risks that they create - such as delayed life experience. Heck, if you're going to worry about that, why not worry that overburdened parents are going to get too little sleep due to having to look after kids so much, and as a result have a car accident and get their kids injured? It doesn't make sense to do something to avoid one type of risk and in the process accept a bigger risk!
I'm not "worried about it". I'm quite content for parents to make the decisions which work best for their child. As a parent, I wanted my teens supervised as I felt it was in their best interest. That doesn't mean I took up residence 3 inches from them observing their every movement and delaying their life experiences while getting too little sleep.
But I'll be happy to discuss different approaches to parenting with you at length once you are actually a parent. Until then, your theories are just that.
such as delayed life experience. Heck, if you're going to worry about that, why not worry that overburdened parents are going to get too little sleep due to having to look after kids so much, and as a result have a car accident and get their kids injured?
Life is plenty long - there's no such thing as "delayed life experience". Even if there were, I'm not sure working a minimum wage job while also going to school really is the type of "life experience" that anyone is clambering for. Also, death or injury aren't the only risks children face, so auto-based risks are not really equivalent.
But I'll be happy to discuss different approaches to parenting with you at length once you are actually a parent. Until then, your theories are just that.
No she doesn't have theories. Everything she states is a 100% fact.
I mean her post alone rewrites human history from tens of thousands of years to millions of years of human evolution
Last edited by Gene Starwind; 11-30-2016 at 12:57 PM..
I base my beliefs on this on how I was raised, and how I raised my children. Your own experience, and that of your children my well cause you conclude that they do in fact need supervision at that age.
No she doesn't have theories. Everything she states is a 100% fact.
I mean her post alone rewrites human history from tens of thousands of years to millions of years of human evolution
She's a he fwiw
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
