I wish I was never born

Seems to be a lot you're taking from the comic than is there. From the most basic view, the counterpoint of "I gave birth to you" (or similarly, "I am your mother/father") is inexcusably silly. The retort of "my birth is not my fault" becomes an acceptable counterpoint in that light. The act of birth gives the parent no more argumentative ground than any other kind of manipulation or logical fallacy you can list, but the moment the statement is uttered it has the potential to become a point of refutation. By noting that you are not responsible for your own birth, you demonstrate how flawed it is to believe that you ought to be grateful that you are born, and furthermore how little being the creator of an intelligent entity means in an argument that doesn't directly involve the act of creation itself.

I see where you are coming from- and largely I would have to agree that “I gave birth to you” isn’t a logical backing for most factual or philosophical disagreements a parent and child may have- unless we infer from that a measure of experience as they then by inference are older- but as I am fond of saying age is a potential indicator of experience and not a solid measure of it- so that is moot. That said though- “I gave birth to you” is not a nonsense argument- firstly and perhaps most importantly- that will almost universally imply one has parental rights- and when dealing with a minor- legal guardianship or custodianship. There are also cultural and social relationships of authority that are fairly universal in concept between parent and child- so we can directly infer this is an argument from authority- “right or wrong is not relevant as I am in charge and this is what I decree.”

But as to answering absurdity with absurdity- it’s possible but optimistic to believe that answering what is, or is at least perceived as absurdity, with absurdity; would highlight to the speaker that their proposition was absurd. The truth is that is seldom the case. Watching 2 fundamentalists or extremists of opposing views debate each other on their views- I have yet to see or hear of a case where for example- a far left communist and a far right capitalist cancelled each other out upon realizing the others absurd rebuttals showcased their own unrealistic world views.

Usually it is just inflammatory. But the question itself, meant to be absurd or not- still is internally what it is. “Who’s fault is that..?” Well- it’s either everyone’s fault or no ones fault really. And if either is true- what is the point? Uncomfortable as it is, especially to egalitarian minds- we do still largely, despite careful stepping around and wording, and progressive advances in the whole enterprise- largely there is what we can effectively relate to a sense of “ownership” between parent and child. We say “guardianship” and there are nuances there- but in the ultimate sense what you have is a legal title- a lease from society- on a not quite fully formed person. Don’t violate the terms of the lease and it’s yours legally for about 18 years. As it isn’t truly “yours” in deed- damage it or place it in unacceptable risk of damage or loss- and it will e repossessed and re allocated.

So while I do believe “I gave birth to you” is inherently primitive and possessive- it’s not out of place with the social values of most societies past or present, which hold a “special” bond between parent/guardian, and child- and generally a legal bond. To treat an adult as one legally may treat a child would be and largely is illegal. But there are certain practical realities of the condition of non adulthood that we recognize require careful consideration and delicate balancing.

In the end- wether either response is nonsense- we don’t control others. If we have any control in this world, and what little control we have, is over ourselves and what we do and say. I would still maintain- that save for the generally but not always, optimistic thought that such a reply would highlight the absurdity of the original argument in a constructive manner- that the reply is a mark of immaturity. And even in our example case, it would show to me that the speaker likely didn’t have a very good understanding of effective discourse- or at the least how not to piss someone off. If the intent is to piss them off or ruffle their feathers- I’d likewise consider that immature. Pocket cases exist where the speaker knows their parent(s) and they would respond positively.

But.... why wouldn’t we just reply something which actually relates to the original statement such as- if we do not believe that giving birth to someone should grant any measure of authority of endearment to their will- of we question their judgment and don’t don’t see what their sexual activity has to do with them being wrong- why not say: “You May have given birth to me but that does not mean you are right about this. <here is where one states their case...>”

A good deal of the time- most children at a certain age almost have to have “friction” with their parents as the child tries to assert themselves as an independent will and take on increasing activity and responsibility to prepare them for what is to come as a full fledged adult. Many parents either fear the negatives or risks of adulthood, or simply from having spent many years dealing with a child- cannot see a young adult. When you watch someone grow up you tend to see them as young- I know people in their 30’s who will always have an association in my mind as “kids” as that is when we met. I have to remind myself that they are not older than I was when we first met. Lol. Of course- that me seems like a kid to me now too- when at the time I was so sure I was an adult.

But this friction between guardian and child is pretty natural. There are negotiations of sorts- kids try to take on responsibility or risk that they feel they can handle, their parents resist and eventually, hopefully, through Bri granted or taking permission to do these things, parents see the child can do them. Alternately, kids often over estimate their abilities or under estimate risk (we all do) and the parent steps in to prevent mistakes (hopefully not all mistakes- but ones which will cause serious harm.) but we never know which case it is until after the fact. So the kid almost always sees a parent stopping them from something they can handle and a parent almost always sees a kid who is headed for disaster.

If everything works out the parent stops the kid in most or all cases where they’d do serious and lasting harm, and in most or all cases the kid is able to explore the world and stretch their potential and grow- and hopefully help prove that they are capable of handling certain things- and the in between is where each recognizes and adapts to the others views and can see where they are probably right or not, without letting emotion and such cloud judgment as it can in the moment.

But what I often see or hear in popular sentiment- and I think applies here- is an idea that if one doesn’t feel they are Recieving the respect they deserve, one doesn’t have to show the their party respect. How does that work? Then who takes the first step to building respect of everyone says “not until they do...”?

Societies tend to develop concepts of flows for respect for this reason. A natural one is child to parent. A being who at any point, in nature, could have ended your existence and likely still can. Whom you likely rely upon for your support, likely provides food and shelter and other things from their own labors for you. Who likely was involved in your fundamental education and formation as a human and emotional well being. Who likely didn’t do a “perfect job” and sometimes yes- as I mentioned, and as is the case for myself and others- you had to support and often hurt you and worked counter to these things. But usually not so much the case on average.

But we decide if we want to be “bigger” or not- and I am not personally amicable to the idea that if a person does not respect you as you want to be respected, that you should not respect them back- that is not about your respect for them- it is about your self respect. If you respect yourself- you respect others even when they disrespect you- because as elitist as it sounds- you’re better than that- or you want to be better at the least than yourself. Being better than yourself means in part- seeing the behaviors you do not like in the world and not being one of those people.

And so many kids who have such great points on parenting and who say their parents are ridiculous and say such ridiculous things.... they grow up and have kids and find themselves doing or thinking the same things. And someday- very likely- they too will say or think: “but I gave birth to you...” because even if that means shit to you as a kid- as a parent, it’s probably one of the most significant things in your life, one of the most cherished and central changes of your core identity and world view that you can take on as an adult.

Tl:dr- reply one and 2 cover the overall bases of my response. The ultimate summation is: I would still generally view it as a sign of immaturity for the reasons listed and more. It is not a constructive reply a mature adult should give. “They were ridiculous first..” “they disrespected me first...” most of us are taught in kindergarten that “they did it first” is not an acceptable defense of our own poor behavior- we control us. Not them. If you have self respect you respect others even when they fail to do so for you. We DO teach people how to respect us trough our behavior and body language- but being a shit or cheeky doesn’t generally instill respect, nor does being inflammatory. I still hold it is the wrong way to reply to the original statement.

Let me reiterate that "I gave birth to you" alone is not an acceptable defense. The act of giving birth, or more generally creation, is no greater indicator of knowledge or experience. This can be loosely extended to "I am your mother/father" in the case where the argument does not involve lineage in any way. If experience is to be drawn upon, the less damning statement to be made is "I experienced Event X before, and this is what I think based on that." Whether or not we think the child will listen is irrelevant, since the child should understand within context that the parent is guiding the child's action based on the parents' own experiences. Declaring one's authority by the means of invoking their loins or their blood relation is inexcusable in a debate. Appealing to "special bonds" is also inexcusable, since these typically follow the same pattern as emotional blackmail. If a point is valid, it should be made without attempting to extort a sense of obligation from the child.

With the point on respect, there seems to be a disconnect between what I intended to convey and what I actually did. Of course, in a setting that's not a formal debate, replying to absurdity with absurdity does not produce any fruitful result, but my point is not that the absurd counterpoint should be made with no regard to the context of the theoretical debate. My point was only that the contents of the point is valid to make, since it draws upon the fact that no extra responsibility is granted by the creator to the created being. No child has the responsibility of affirming every statement their parents make. If the parent wishes to impose that false responsibility, I would claim that it is well within the child's right to reject that responsibility (whether privately or publicly, whichever imposes a lesser risk to the child's well-being). It is not an act of disrespect to do so, if anything it affirms the child's self-esteem and devalues any external attempt to do otherwise.

For the general case you are bringing attention to, I do agree that it is not wise or prudent to treat disrespect with disrespect. The axis of respect you demonstrate for a perfect stranger is different than that of an accomplished scientist, or that of your manager, or that of your employees, and so on. Within each axis is a level of respect that you can choose to demonstrate, however strict or lax you choose to make each end of your scale. Dependent on the axis of which you treat the person in your exchanges, if you are shown disrespect, you have no moral obligation to treat them with either less or more respect. But you are also not obligated to hold the same respect for them, or heighten your level of respect. To claim otherwise calls for rather extenuating circumstances that would prove difficult for me to make much argumentative grounds on.

If you choose to continue to treat people with the same level of respect to prove that you are better, then that is your burden to hold. But it does not hold that other people must share this burden. If they choose to drop the facade in the face of continued, sustained, or aggravated disrespect, then they have the right to. Without this freedom to dissociate from and not affirm harmful influences, no person could possibly make any attempt to better their lives or build their self esteem.

We seem to largely agree on the bulk of the incidentals- With a few points of dissent, most which I think can be chalked up to specific circumstance, a few which I think are not resolved by agreeing to the unseen.

To be clear, I wrote a lot so it may have gotten lost in there- I don’t think “I gave birth to you” is something that should really come up in disagreement between parent and child. We agree there. However- the meme is authored from the perspective of the child to be related to by the child, so it is to the child I penned my response. Were the meme authored as though by the parent, who thinks “I gave birth to you” is the “un pop able balloon,” I would have instead focused primarily on that aspect and made the child’s part the foot note as opposed to this way.

That said- appropriate or not or is how they feel. And again- parents have an obligation to control or regulate emotion and reaction with children and can’t just say or do whatever they might with an adult- but it isn’t unreasonable that a parent would feel SOME obligation on the part of the child for their status as their offspring. As stated- this is a legally and culturally supported principal- that children in fact do have SOME obligation to their parents and are to be in their stewardship and guidance- based almost solely on the fact they are a parent- there isn’t really a test one must pass to have legal parental rights unless sufficient burden has been appeased to have removed those rights. The default is- those what produced the offspring, are in charge of the offspring.

Now this is where I see that circumstance factors in. The age of the child, the reason for the spat and what it is the parent is requesting. From your reply I infer you to be picturing bling obedience and some form of total subjugation- which I would likewise agree in my view is absurd for a parent to expect. To be clear- I am more picturing a scenario where the parent has requested an action, or forbidden an action, based on their judgment or proclivities- the two have argued on merits- or the parent does not wish to argue- and the child challenges- so the parent asserts dominance. “I gave birth to you.” “Because I said so.” Etc. and personally I feel that in different situations the defense of underlying logic can be debated- but it seems we agree that regardless it is not an ideal or appropriate statement by a parent in most all but the most pocket cases, and even then questionable.

But that’s the crux here- there are better ways for a parent to communicate. In my opinion there are better ways to parent. Not all parents have those resources or tools- and while it is primitive- ultimately almost none but the most progressive of parenting styles do not have a core of parental authority.

I won’t rehash the whole thing I said above- as stated- there is a healthy type of what we may call “rebellion” or more accurately- a child asserting themselves as an individual as they develop. Where parent and child lack the skills and resources- this assertion often (and traditionally) may take the form of rebellion as they lack the framework and mental tools to work out these changes and new dynamics; to mutually trust and negotiate in a more civil manner new responsibilities and such as well as the specifics occurring from any breaches by either party or misunderstanding/miscommunication of expectations and rules.

But there are most certainly lines that a parent in good conscious shouldn’t allow a child to cross- almost regardless of the means required to prevent it. It is better in my view for a parent to prepare a child to make decisions and deal with consequences than to simply ensure they don’t “screw up” until they are legally not their “problem.” That said- this inherently can create a “hypocritical” relationship outside of a “perfect test case example” as in preparing a child for the world- a parent must prepare them for a world that can be cruel, unfair, uncaring, and relationships of power are (sadly) not based on clear logic or such- but are based more in... authority. A good boss will listen to your concerns in general- but good bosses are not so much the norm. One simply need look to global politics or current affairs to see that teaching a child that you can argue or logic your way through.... that is not always an option.

Especially so when one doesn’t posses the soft skills or hard skills for it- and “Who’s fault is that” is not an argument that upon hearing in reply- I would be confident the speaker had such skills to make their way through life on their gift of gab. To be clear I am not saying a parents job is to be unnecessarily cruel or certainly not arbitrary with children. I’m saying that while fostering such skills as critical thinking and helping them for a morality and develop a world view- a parents job is in part to show them the “holes” in their math on the shape of the world. To help them question and to shore up what cannot stand on its own legs yet.

As to the last part- to be clear, I said to be better than ones self- not better than the other party. And not everyone has the same standards as I do, and generally I do not hold others to the standards I hold myself. It is certainly a persons rights to say whatever they want. At least in places with free speech as a promise. One even- if we want to get technical- at least in America- has the right to use slurs and hate speech so long as they do not do so in a way which infringes upon the rights of others as interpreted by law. That does not make hate speech noble. It does not make hate speech something I would admire or tolerate. Because I also have the right to say what I think to that person no?

And certainly- having the right to do something does not make one immune to the perceptions of others. I personally do not see one who disrespects others as having self respect. They may have self worth, even an abundance or over abundance of a sense of their own worth- but I differentiate self respect in the same sense that I distinguish false bravado from confidence derived from true self knowledge and acceptance.

That isn’t to say that a person with self respect is NEVER disrespectful- we are all humans, we all have breaking points- random incidents do not make a pattern... until and unless they do. To another point- two people can disagree without a need for disrespect, and as stated, another’s disrespect doesn’t require us to return it. What we do is telling of who we are. How people interpret our actions certainly is subjective- but people who are reactionary and transactional in reciprocation are people whom you do not know what face of them you will get, as it will be based entirely on their perceptions regardless of material fact. This is true to some degree with all humans, that emotion influences actions- but drastically so in these cases. So I approach from the direction of a person who doesn’t like, and rarely has, problems with people because I do not cotton to problematic behavior.