I thought it ended a post ago. Merc admited to a mistake just like I did.

Maybe in your country or in your home. Kids have no right to privacy. Adults have a right to privacy. Kids have no rights other than what I mentioned earlier.

How are you going to know if any child/teen is trustworthy unless you have the ability to check up on them?

Why doesn't a kid have a right to privacy? I might have missed it, but I don't ever recall the argument of why.

I would say that it is a personal choice on how parents exercise a teens right to privacy and the parents choose what boundries to set, not the teen, on just how much privacy they may or may not set. There are so many factors which affect just how much privacy is or should be afforded to any minor child for which you are directly responsible for. Teens face many issues, drugs, drinking, speeding, suicide, drinking and driving, sexual behavior, pregnancy... all of these things place teens at risk. If a parent can intervene and help the child/teen make the right choices they may be able to avert a family/community disaster which could forever change peoples lives. In todays world of cell phones, text messaging, internet connections, etc, parent have lost an ability to help keep their kids safe. I still contend that a "kid" (minor) has no right to privacy, but that in fact it is a privilege afforded to the minor, as seen fit to the appropriate behavior of the child. Good behavior, greater privilege to privacy, bad behavior, then that privilege is appropriately modified as required. A fairly simple but difficult parenting responsibility.

Here are a few things to think about, as you will see the issue is complicated:

http://www.drheller.com/privacy.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...teenagers.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060208.html

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/facul...rnia_cour.html

There're legal rights...

and then there're rights as a person.


Denying someone their rights as a person on any account, be it age, sex, race, orientation... is wrong.
That, merc, is why you're an asshole. Because you believe in authoritarianism and you believe in stripping people of their rights.

You can't strip someone of something they don't have. You are still a kid/minor/teen and that is why it is something you can't grasp.

Once again we come to the difference between legal rights and rights as a person.

I believe it is the right of ever person to freedom, privacy, etc., and fuck the law if it doesnt agree.

You don't. You believe in authoritarianism and control.

So as a person do I have a right to not be felt up before I get on the plane tomorrow even though it is the law?

they dont touch you do they?

and if you ask me, yes, you do... but on the other hand, youre sacrificing your freedom and rights for security. Which is more important to you?

To me it's freedom, but sometimes I'll surrender a bit of it if it'll get me home or get me where I wanna go.

Then wouldn't you think it would be mercenary's right as a parent to decide how free or secure his children are? I disagree with how severe he is but I doubt he is doing for the purpose of being an ogre.

Yes they do. I went to disney world last summer and I was pulled aside in the airport. The security felt me from top to bottom with her hands and then told me to take my shoes off.

The flaw comes in the fact that the internet, if you teach your kid (like the entire point of my argument revolves around), is not a threat of any sort.

That is true. I don't feel it is more of a threat than going to the mall, less in fact.

Quite a bit less; On the internet they cant come near you if you dont tell them to, in the mall they can just come up and grab you.