Other posts responding to this statement consist of red herrings and straw men (logical fallacies). They don't address your central point in this post, which I think I agree with: The parents set the rules for the children and trust you to follow their rules. In other words, you made a promise (whether verbal or implied) and you are keeping that promise.

It is the same thing with, say, a Boyscout leader. If they take your child camping, it is understood or assumed that they promise to care for your child in the wilderness. Teachers and school administrators have a "trust" to protect the children while they are at school.

OF COURSE if the parents' rules are harmful or illegal, the "trust" is invalidated. (This is the "Straw Man" fallacy I mentioned above - setting up a weak situation as equal to the current situation). If the parents rule is to beat the child, you DON'T and would not follow that rule.

I don't see these logical fallacies you mention here, LGL40, and I think you may have possibly misread some of those responses you mentioned, or actually skimmed through them and not read them closely enough. If so, that may be due to the fact that you have a strong emotional investment in the Butterfly's points (no, not those ones!), which is therefore causing you to read responses to him a bit selectively.

For one thing, I have said many times before that a caregiver is perfectly capable of setting reasonable rules for kids that keep them safe from genuine, demonstrable dangers. This would include rules against playing in the street near heavy traffic; rules such as not playing in the backyard that has a dangerous guard dog roaming around in it at unexpected times of the day; do not climb the old staircase in an abandoned house, because it might collapse on them; even not listening to the CD player loudly at night, or a requirement to use headphones if they want to listen, so that other people can sleep is fully within reason.

But see, parents' right to set rules do not stop at the reasonable length. You cannot pick and choose which rules of parents are harmful; you have to follow them all or the parent can remove you from their child's life. The harmful bullying parents can do to kids are not always one of the few very extreme things they can do that will get the laws attention. They also encompass forcing kids to live their lives only as their parents want them to, and to forcibly deny them access to alternative sources of information; of expressing their opinions on issues important to them; disallowing them to seek out humane employment to achieve a measure of economic independence, etc.

None of these responses have suggested that caregivers should shirk their responsibilities in terms of enforcing reasonable rules. Saying that they did is, in all honesty, an example of the very Straw Man you admonished them for setting up themselves.

I for one am sticking precisely to the "harm" principle in my stance. As a strong advocate of civil rights, I believe it's extremely harmful and immoral for my friend Dave to have his daughter Renee spied on regarding her personal Internet activities. I think I fully respect him by not telling her what he's doing. But because I find what he is doing to be wrong, nobody better expect me to tell him if I happen to stumble upon the knowledge that she found a way to get past his spying network. I would never help her do that, of course. However, I would never make an agreement with him to narc on her, so I don't see it as a betrayal of trust. The thing is, I respect my friend and his niece equally, not him more so than her just because he has all the power. So I think the compromise I made is more than reasonable and fair to both parties.

Back to the parents setting the rules: Someone, somewhere, must have the responsibility to set rules for the kids, teach them how to function in society, teach them how to interact with others, etc.

The entire community can do that, as can various support groups that modern technology makes possible.

Even if I disagree slightly with the way certain parents raise their kids, they are still the best ones to do so (well, of course, I am perfect and would therefore be better, but I speak of others). I disagree with atheists, but will defend their right to raise their kids that way.

In contrast, I will not support the "right" of parents to forcibly raise their kids to embrace atheism (to use your example), while refusing to allow them to research material from any other belief system. That goes against every principle I hold dear as a civil rights activist who stands behind the edicts of self-autonomy and that the Constitution applies to everyone. I acknowledge that parents currently have the power to do this, and I cannot circumvent it in any way, and I leave it at that while fighting to establish youth liberation. Forcing kids to adopt a specific world view while forbidding them to study alternatives; instilling racial or ethnic prejudices in them, etc.; are wrong and harmful, and I will never help a parent do something like those above examples.

I respect you, Butterfly, for respecting the trust given to you by Abby's parents.

Who says any of us wouldn't give our lives to protect kids we love from a genuine, demonstrable nature? I would give my life for my niece Renee in a heartbeat. I, and the others, are simply saying that we disagree that being a narc about something that doesn't constitute danger for the underager in our charge, but simply something the parents would disapprove of, I take the route on compromising between my respect for both, and simply stay out of the situation.

IMO, it's more important to support justice than power.