Psychology Today: We Suck As Parents!

[skb12172]

When even the neurotic eggheads are clued in on this, I think it has become a problem that can no longer be fixed. I have witnessed these very phenomenons as a parent and as an Educator who has taught Kindergarten through Graduate School in my career.

Fixed Link!

[skb12172]

Thanks. Fixed.

[skb12172]

Master Educator and Musician, Branford Marsalis tells it like it is. Can I get an "Amen?"

Preach It!

[Aesop]

It isn't blaming just, or even mostly, parents.

It's blaming the whole goddamned system of mollycoddling people into their 70s while simultaneously regulating their existence from the diaper years onwards.
It's why an 80-year-old who slams 10 people to death isn't at fault for stomping the wrong pedal, while a 7-year-old is cited and hauled to jail for an unlicensed lemonade stand or riding a bicycle in the park without a helmet.

The entire society has been infantilized by an overarching Nannystate socialism, which is destroying our birthright, screwing us for generations, and destroying all human development inexorably.

The first two helpful movements the other way would be to revoke the ability to sue {outside of small claims court} for any personal behavior that resulted from nonfelonious conduct, limit suits for felonious conduct to the actual defendant(s) committing the crime, and post signs at every street corner that say,
"If you do something stupid, and you get hurt, it's all your own fault"

[Aglifter]

So, if someone backs into my car, and won't pay for the repair, I couldn't sue for damages?

[308Mike]

So, if someone backs into my car, and won't pay for the repair, I couldn't sue for damages?

OBVIOUSLY, that would have to be rethought, along with lots of other scenarios such as forged documents, contracts, etc., etc.

[Aesop]

So, if someone backs into my car, and won't pay for the repair, I couldn't sue for damages?

Forgive me, I worded that poorly.

Sure, you can sue in small claims court, strictly for actual damages. And the maximum there might be raised somewhat. But certainly not to absurd figures.
What you couldn't do is grab a lawyer, and try and turn it into a lotto payday against the other driver, the makers of both cars, the city, and the crew that paved the road.

Of course, it would be far simpler to require that you carry insurance that paid for all damages you suffer, regardless of fault.
Premiums would go up if you got in a lot of accidents, or drove a more expensive car, or lived in a high-risk area for accidents.
Oh wait, we already have that. And they also require you to carry uninsured motorist coverage.
So you don't need lawsuits, just better insurance. Or sturdier bumpers.
You could report the accident, and if it turned out the other party was uninsured, his car gets confiscated. The second offense, he goes to jail. The third time, it's a felony. Sue him all you like then.

How do you figure folks would drive if they were always, at all times, 100% responsible for themselves and their misfortunes, and knew the minute they pulled out that they couldn't sue anyone else silly, and that all accidents would be charged back to them by their own insurance?