Roman Polanski arrested in Zürich

[Barrister]

Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.

No one can "make rules" for their property. 

Well, I suppose you could make a rule that your house must jog around the block every day, but the house won't obey your rule.

My dogs are my property.  I make rules for them.

Some rules are followed more closely than others...

[Maximus]

You can make rules for something if it is your property, but the converse is not true. Many organizations, including the state, make rules for people who are not their property.

[grumbler]

My dogs are my property.  I make rules for them.

Some rules are followed more closely than others...

The rules that you train them to follow, they follow.  The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore.  This is thus an issue of training, not rules.

[Barrister]

My dogs are my property.  I make rules for them.

Some rules are followed more closely than others...

The rules that you train them to follow, they follow.  The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore.  This is thus an issue of training, not rules.

This is true.

But my example only goes to counter your point that you can't have rules for property.  You can.

[Eddie Teach]

The rules that you train them to follow, they follow.  The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore.  This is thus an issue of training, not rules.

Even so, dogs aren't computer programs and will never follow those rules as closely as one might like.

[Ed Anger]

Ed's rule:

1) Obey

Done.

[crazy canuck]

You can make rules for something if it is your property, but the converse is not true.

I make all kinds of rules that I expect people (who are not my property) to follow.  My employees and my kids come to mind.

[crazy canuck]

The rules that you train them to follow, they follow.  The ones you don't train them to follow, they ignore.  This is thus an issue of training, not rules.

Even so, dogs aren't computer programs and will never follow those rules as closely as one might like.

My dog is much more reliable then many programs out there.

[crazy canuck]

But my example only goes to counter your point that you can't have rules for property.  You can.

I think you missed Grumbler's grammatical critique.

[Martinus]

Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.

No one can "make rules" for their property. 

Well, I suppose you could make a rule that your house must jog around the block every day, but the house won't obey your rule.

My dogs are my property.  I make rules for them.

Some rules are followed more closely than others...

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

I disagree with grallon that age of consent is irrelevant or it is "I-take-them-as-I-see-them" but just as I oppose child abuse, I oppose overbearing parents making arbitrary decisions for their children who are capable of making them on their own.

I think my position is the most principled one of the three (the other two presented by grallon and CCR).

[Valmy]

Only that he doesn't make rules for his kids. They are not his property.

He has authority over his kids.  The government has authority over me and they make rules for me...does that mean I am the property of the state?  I think you are living a bit too close to Russia.

[garbon]

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.

[Valmy]

and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

Well if there is anything 15 and 16 year old are known for it is informed and sound judgements.  A 16 year old may have a drivers license but if he is abusing the privledge somehow a parent would and should step in even if what the kid is doing is not technically illegal in someway.  It is the same if a kid had the right to consent, if they are using it in a self destructive manner the parent, such as CCR, should step in.

Despite what you might believe a parent may still have a few lessons left to teach their child after the kid turns 15.  Even about sex.

[Valmy]

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.

What he said.

[Martinus]

Ok, my point (and opposition to CCR's position) was that people above age of consent (which I consider to be around 15-16) should be free to make their own decisions - and I would prefer a parent who raised his kids in a way that would allow them to make such an informed decision themselves, rather than making it a subject to a "my-house-my-rules" fiat, on something as personal and intimate as sexual intercourse.

Children are stupid and need some rules. News at 11.

People are stupid in general. There is nothing to suggest parents are not more stupid than their 15-16 y.o. kids.