@SomeShinyObject depends on context and use?

@SomeShinyObject It is an authoritarian approach to parenting, which I dislike in general, but as @Stephie wisely said, it depends on the circumstances.

Also, I don't believe in empty threats; the option to move out has to be real. Therefor saying it to a 12 year old, for example, is silly unless leaving home is really the consequence of continued (mis)behavior; saying it to an 18 year old really means, "If you don't want to respect my value system, you will need to move out."

context

@dxh - Oh! Thanks for the context!

@EngrStudent - A personal disagreement between two people should be done where it won't be read by numerous people.

@SomeShinyObject - I had to say that to my 14 year old little sister when I was 24, her guardian, and she was addicted to Crystal Meth. It sucked. It was a last-line statement. It came just before the realization that my support of her in any way was enabling her suicide and the only way to not be complicit was actually to kick her out, which I hated, and I had to do.

@EngrStudent This is the perfect example of when to use the "my house, my rules" reasoning.

@SomeShinyObject In context, I would not change anything I stated.

@EngrStudent We now have more in common than I realized.

My sister, who is not the most stable person in the world, kicked out her 15 year old son because he got an ear pierced after she had told him he could not. It boggles the mind.

@anongoodnurse - I like decorum, and I consider it very important to engage as much as possible in a one-on-one manner first. There is something to be said in that somethings can harm the community if it is initiated in public and decided in private. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, sometimes.

When he went to live with an aunt that lived locally, his mother stopped speaking to the aunt, who was her best friend at the time.

@EngrStudent If you're using this as a defense of personal questions, I disagree. If you're saying that this happens in moderating sites, I agree. Unfortunately, moderators sign a rules of conduct contract that prohibits discussing interactions with other users in public or private.

@anongoodnurse - There is a context around the ear-ring. Respect. Defiance. Sanity. Maybe your sister didn't have the resources to maintain homeostasis and engage, and was in her view a life/death battle. Maybe your sister was mentally ill, and needed professional help. I can't know, having not been there, and not being a party, or a professional.

My sister is definitely mentally ill. She has NPD.

And people with NPD do dreadful things.

@anongoodnurse - (rules) sounds like a version of Godel's incompleteness theorem. The rules are incapable of being sufficient, because humans qualify as fundamentally complex enough. Godel proved that if the system is above a water-line of complexity then the rules can never actually do what they are intended to do.

@anongoodnurse - (mental illness) I don't know what NPD is but I grew up around a few breeds of mental illness (PTSD, Manic-Depressive, …)

@EngrStudent I like that. There are general rules that people must follow most of the time, but I'm a firm believer in the Spirit of the law superseding the letter of the law.

@EngrStudent We've all grown up knowing people with mental illnesses; we just don't know all of it, because many people were never diagnosed, and it was a taboo subject in the past.

NPD - Narcissistic personality disorder.

I'm sad you have to deal with that. I've worked for narcissists. It's hell.

Gotta run. I can talk with you another time if that is okay.

@EngrStudent I don't deal with it anymore. I think it's going on 15-20 peaceful years since I last spoke to my sister.

@EngrStudent Any time! :D Have a good day!

@stephie Just some commenting on my answer of the most recent question about teen sleep.

The asker mentioned they didn’t want to use “my house, my rules” as a justification. I stated in my answer that although it shouldn’t be lorded over them, my house, my rules is appropriate in some situations. I think of it as the nuclear option. Discussion with a child and coming to an agreement about some things is great but sometimes it needs to be understood that there exists a Boundary and no amount of discussion/arguing/ defiance will shift the boundary.

@anongoodnurse Thanks for the validation.

It should always be used as a last resort.

Or when you can necessarily explain the reasoning without making the child curious to a point of danger

I.e. why the children don't need full unrestricted access to the internet. They don't need to know all the details of what is out there that they could accidentally find. They need to trust that you know what is best for them.