<p>There are plenty of ways that one can not hang out with drinkers – sub-free housing, particular student groups that tend not to drink, and so forth. It is not at all an unreasonable situation at some colleges. It also does not mean they are sheltered or limited in number of friends – it just means that they have made friends with different people (by choice). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not at all condescending. Furthermore, if this conversation were about, say, rape, I doubt that people would be so unthinking in labeling the “negative” outcome as inevitable (i.e., the child is a rapist).</p>
<p>It’s condescending to say/believe that if your kids were raised by parents with “certain” values, they will obey all drinking laws and not have fake IDs.</p>
<p>I’m sure this is true, but it must be very limiting. If you are involved in any campus organizations, like student government, musical groups, sports teams, etc. then I presume you must never socialize with them outside the official event, otherwise you might risk accidentally “hanging out” with a drinker.</p>
<p>Where did she generalize that claim? I only saw that statement in reference to her own children.</p>
<p>Furthermore, even if that weren’t the case, I still fail to see how it would be condescending, versus misguided, narrow, naive, or some such (I don’t agree with any of those, I just see them as more reasonable descriptors).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would say two things from personal experience, so take them as you will:</p>
<p>1) There are certain groups on campus that tend to attract heavy drinkers, and others that tend in the opposite direction</p>
<p>2) I am involved in activities with whose members I don’t socialize outside of the official event. This is because we have nothing in common besides this activity. This is actually true of many people I know. They can be friends with no overlap in classes or ECs</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a difference between “hanging out” with a drinker, “hanging out” with a drinker who is drinking at that moment, and “hanging out” with a very heavy drinker. Perhaps the poster who mentioned this could clarify what she meant.</p>
<p>The point is that you really can’t be 100% sure what somebody else will do, no matter how well you know them. I would posit that you can’t even be 100% sure what you yourself will do in unknown future circumstances. Certainly, you may be able to feel confident that some behaviors are extremely unlikely. I have not, for example, given my son any advice on how he should go about committing rape, if he should choose to do so. However, anybody who thinks that it is so unlikely that any college student will drink alcohol underage or engage in premarital sex that it is not worth educating them about the consequences is, in my opinion, simply in a state of denial about human behavior.</p>
<p>I disagree completely. It is not enough to say, “most individuals do X, thus your child (likely) will.” You would have to consider the very particular circumstances of the person in question, then reach a conclusion for the claim to mean anything.</p>
<p>In other words, why should I believe the statement I quoted at all? Do you know atomom’s children personally? Are you aware of the statistics of children in very comparable circumstances? How, then, are you comfortable making such a strong claim?</p>
<p>All of these questions can certainly be asked of atomom as well.</p>
<p>It is condescending because the poster is implicitly saying that the answer to making sure kids do not drink is by instilling certain values, and that because their kids do not drink, their values (and ability to impose them on their kids) are superior to someone else’s values whose kids drink. How can you not deduct that what the poster is suggesting is that, if every parent assumed their values, no underaged kids would drink (or break any laws for that matter). </p>
<p>What those of us who disagree with this believe is that it can be a crapshoot. Those same parents could have had identical twins and one end up being a drinker and the other not. Of course your values are going to influence their decisions, but you cannot attribute them 100% to your kid being a tea totaler and their are no guarantees. The poster gave their sole reason for their kids not drinking as instilling good values. And to insist so is saying you have all the answers and us peons who have kids who drink somehow missed the lesson on how to keep our kids from drinking (if that’s what we wish they’d do).</p>
<p>Do you have any IDEA how many parents who are “sure” their kids hate alcohol, aren’t having sex, don’t look at porn, would never cheat etc are absolutely WRONG? Let me tell you about some of the wonderful families I’ve met who have placed kids in residential emotional growth programs. They’ll tell you about facing reality.</p>
<p>It is also condescending to imply that there is anything inherently wrong with an adult who is under 21 having a drink in the privacy of their own home. Oh horrors, just imagine if your 20-year-old actually hung out in a dorm room with another 20-year-old who was drinking a beer! You’d obviously be a total failure as a parent if this happened.</p>
<p>She said that that was the reason her kids don’t drink. Let’s confine this to what is written and not what we think people meant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t condescending at all. This is an inherent part of holding beliefs – that they are correct. The fact that she is willing to state this doesn’t mean her mentality is condescending, it just means that you disagree with her moral code.</p>
<p>Replace “drinking” in her post with some horrible crime and then tell me it’s condescending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s “deduce,” at least after the 17th century. Anyway, I say what I have said before – I stick to what is written on the page. If you want to slam the poster, you better be sure that you are slamming something she actually said instead of setting up straw men left and right. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think it is utterly and disgustingly condescending to imply that there is anything wrong with torturing your pet in the privacy of your own home. Or raping someone. Or whatever.</p>
<p>At age 18 you can join the military and die fighting for your country, get married, start living on your own, vote, etc… but you can’t crack a beer. Ridiculous in my opinion.</p>
<p>I don’t get the point of having a fake ID. Do you really want alcohol and parties THAT bad? I might be biased, but that’s probably because I find most alcohol to be too bitter.</p>
<p>However, I do agree (again, I am biased) that we should reduce the influence of alcohol on society. Most of the effects of alcohol are negative. Only very small amounts of red wine (generally not consumed at bars) has any positive health benefits. </p>
<p>We were successful at reducing smoking, let’s do that for alcohol as well.</p>
<p>Snarky much?? Excuse me… I had a human moment - in fact, my dog had just thrown up and I was quickly trying to complete a thought (I wrote my second paragraph first, then decided to go back and add the first) and did not double check my post. But if it makes you feel better, I will contact a moderator and ask them to correct it since I can no longer edit.</p>
<p>Baelor - she is saying the reason her kids don’t drink is because she has instilled a ‘kind’ of value in them. What ‘kind’ of value?? … obviously the ‘kind’ those of us whose kids do drink have not instilled. When you insist your values have produced a certain outcome, which is preferred, you are saying your values are better than others (which is condescending). If the poster had suggested she thinks their values contributed toward their children’s choices, along with other factors, then I wouldn’t have an issue, but the poster did not elaborate on any other factor, which can only lead us to believe it was purely their values that produced the result.</p>
<p>I completely agree. In fact, I have written letters to the editor of our local paper when a newer restaurant in our area decided they wanted to obtain a liquor license after opening and basically held our village board hostage when they would not give in. We have more than enough establishments in our area with liquor licenses and we didn’t need another. They eventually closed down (so our town lost a little bit of tax revenue) as they had threatened, but within a couple of years, another business took its place and has done well without a liquor license.</p>
<p>Hardly. They’re not comparable beyond the fact that they are considered by some to be moral issues. </p>
<p>Deal with the analogy, or discredit in a substantial manner. But the only connection between the items is, as I said that they are considered moral issues. That is the limit of the necessity of the connection for the purposes of my analogy. </p>
<p>In other words, why should the OP conform to your morality system? Is that not exactly why you are faulting her – for asserting that something you view as morally acceptable is actually morally wrong? The analogy follows directly from this.</p>
<p>LOL–well, I’ll take credit for reviving this thread. . .
Anyway, in an effort to be concise, I wrote that “my kids don’t hang out with drinkers.”
I actually considered conveying this thought in a longer way with something like: my kids’ close friends are not those for whom “socializing” necessarily involves alcohol. If anyone interpreted “not hanging out with drinkers” as “My kid has never been in the presence of anyone who ever consumed alcohol” – that is not what I said/meant.</p>
<p>When I say that there is a whole lifetime of parenting behind my kids’ attitudes toward alcohol (and there is a family history of alcoholism. . .)–not just one moment of parental disapproval of fake ID’s–that would make my kids not interested in drinking or getting a fake ID, I’m talking about my kids and their situation–their attitudes toward alcohol/laws were formed over many years. (I don’t really have time for their life stories in one post.) If some folks have read into my post that I’m saying that I’m a better parent than parents whose kids drink, that’s not what I said. If this is a sore point for anyone because your family has struggled with alcohol issues, I’m truly sorry. (I’ve seen plenty of the damage that alcohol can do.) My post was in response to a student rant against “uptight” parents–I think I’d be considered one of them on this thread. What I’m saying is that it is OK not to drink alcohol. It is healthy. There really are kids out there who don’t drink. I think raising the drinking age to 21 was a good idea. I think it is right to teach kids to obey the law/not to drink–these values have to come from somewhere. And anyone is free to disagree with these values. Also, let’s recognize that there are cultural and regional differences in the use of alcohol. </p>
<p>Nicole–I agree with you about reducing the negative influences of alcohol in society.</p>
<p>BTW, I am still 100% sure my kids don’t have fake IDs and don’t hang out with (meaning don’t socialize with but may sit next to in class, study or work with in various clubs/activities) drinkers (meaning those whose idea of socializing always/usually involves drinking alcohol) today.</p>
<p>Sorry, thread is too long to read through. </p>
<p>When my sister turned 21, my family took her and friends out to Vegas to celebrate. I was 16 and the ONLY one under 21. My parents told my sister to get me a fake ID so that I could accompany them places. So she did. Super quick and easy, too. </p>
<p>Never used it besides that vacation. If I wanted alcohol or anything, I would have just gotten it from other people. I don’t drink though.</p>
Baelor, you may really think that it’s just as likely that you would do something really horrible as it is that you (or one of your friends) would drink or have sex. In a way, I envy you, because you clearly haven’t had to face much disillusionment yet. I will note that even people who do horrible things often shock their families and friends when they do them.</p>
<p>But since this thread is in the Parents’ Cafe, it’s really about parenting. I certainly agree with atomom that it’s OK not to drink–I don’t drink myself, and I would prefer that my kids didn’t drink. I can’t, in honesty, tell them that it’s immoral for them to do so, especially in situations where it is legal, so it’s up to them to decide. So I think it’s important for them to know about consequences. As to fake IDs, I am more opposed to them, but I still think it’s important for kids to understand the consequences. As has been noted upthread, fake IDs actually have uses that don’t even really involve underage drinking–like getting into the club where the band you want to hear is playing. I suspect that some kids who don’t drink (or don’t drink much) are still tempted to get fake IDs for this reason. (Crossposted with romangypsyeyes.)</p>
<p>I guess I’d have problems with parenting that involves asking a kid to do something illegal that could involve a felony (in some states, a fake ID is a felony). People really don’t THINK sometimes about long term consequences of what they’re doing. Parents should NOT be encouraging short term gratification offered by a fake ID. If people don’t like the current laws regarding legal age (e.g. of attending concerts etc), they should try to change the laws rather than going around it & encouraging their kids to go around it with a huge potential penalty. While many folks don’t get caught, I personally have seen folks who have and nasty consequences that can follow. Risks vs. benefits–may really not be worth it, even if risk is remote when the penalty is very high.</p>