>>
If a certain evil minded daughter doesn’t respect her father, that puts him in the bad parenter’s category. This establishes what she has been trying to prove. Nice theory.
>>

My dad works for the army. If i call him a murderer, he won’t agree. When I don’t respect him for my own reasons, that doesn’t make him a bad parent. Respect is not a corollary to good/correct. Goodness is variable, correctness is absolute.

There should be some leeway in such cases, rather than saying bye-bye at the very first prick of pain.

Well that’s the subjective approach of an individual case. This article clearly does not concerns that.

There are really only three kinds of relationships in the world. The first kind is the one we all dream of – joyous, mutually beneficial, deep, meaningful, fun, a real pleasure to have and to hold.

This kind of relationship is extraordinarily rare. If this kind of relationship were an animal, it would not even be on the endangered list. It would be by many considered extinct.

The second kind of relationship is mutually beneficial, but not joyous, deep, or meaningful. This is the kind of relationship you have with your grocer, your banker, and perhaps your boss. It is voluntary, defined by an implicit or explicit contract, and can usually be broken or allowed to lapse without guilt, regret or remorse.

This kind of relationship is not uncommon, but also not very important. We do not lose our lives, our happiness or our very souls in the pits of these kinds of relationships. They are, as the saying goes, “dry calculations of mutual utility.” We are not obligated to go to the deathbeds of our bankers; our grocers do not force us to attend church when we do not believe; we rarely get into fights with our bosses about whether or not we should baptize our children.

No, it is the third kind of relationship that we are most concerned with in our lives. It is the third kind of relationship that so often tortures us. It is the third kind of relationship that undermines our joy, integrity and independence…

On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion

Audiobook, PDF, online or print.

And sorry for abusing ur site, on ur site itself, it has some gr8 ideas, and some wrong, particularly this one.

I won’t engage in any word abusement spree with you, it reduces the charm.

Yet, I want to clearout some wrong and extremely henious misconceptions which are well set in your (of no or very little use) brain.

1st thing is, not only Indian culture, but every culture whole round the world, respects and acclaims the reasonable right of human to be free of any duty towards anybody just because he is son or daughter of any particular person.
You owe nothing to anybody just because you are son/daughter of a particular person.
If someone’s father had kiled some person or had raped some women or children, or anything like that, then that someone cannot be and should not be punished for his parent’s/father’s fault’s and crimes. He owes nothing to anybody just because he is a son of killer, or a rapist, or a son of a simple honest yet ‘black’ person. That is, you or anybody else cannot or shouldnot discriminate anybody just on the basis of his birth in a particular culture, or family, or country or creed, or religion, or parents, the human have got human rights not on the basis of their birth to some particular race or creed or religion or family, no matters you are son of prince charles, or son of George W Bush, or Saddam Hussein, you are not at all “responsible” for your parent’s or creed’s or religion’s or group’s acts. You cannot term a muslim a terrorist just because some terrorists are muslims. A human’s Individual rights are obviously independent of birth to any particular family, creed, race, nation, culture, religion etc. they are equal for all irrespective of their birth. Equal for Father, and son too.
Ofcourse a son have no responsibility if his father is a religious war monger, he can surely deny helping his father in any wrong because that relation is meant to be volunatry, and if it is made compulsory, that since you are son of a particular person hence you hold responsibilities towards him and his acts, than it will be injustice.
You cannot hang a person just because his father was involved in a bomb blast.
Yet, if the son was voluntary involved in that bomb blast than surely he will be punished alongwith his father. But if he wasn’t involved, he won’t be and shouldnot be punished.
If a prostitute has a daughter, than no culture should criticize or debarr or ostracize the daughter, just because the mother of that girl is prostitute.

In India we have a famous Old Saying “janam deke Koi Karam Ka Saathi Nahi Ban Jatta”
Which means that just because someone has given you birth, he won’t be responsible for your wrong or right acts, those acts will be your own responsibility, similarly, neither your parent’s acts will be considered as your responsibility. If your father has taken a loan, you are not entitled to pay back if you yourself havenot taken the responsibility to pay the loan back by your own will voluntarily.
It’s all legal, natural reasonable and accurate, you are uselessly trying to criticise a right and reasonable concept.
If the parents do good and reasonable job as parents, they gains respect and affection by their own on their abilities, but if someone’s father is an alcoholic, rapist, paediophile who have raped his own daughter how can you even think that the daughter will feel any respect towards her father?

Chill!

I feel its a shameful act to even try to compare Government with family or Parenthood.

\I wonder how the heck you can term or suggest government as important as Parents? Were you on “Involuntary weeds” while writing this crap?/

No, its not a joke, I am serious, try to answer me, what suggests you that government is as important for you as your parent?

Anyways, unknowingly (under the compulsion of Involuntary weeds you consumed last night) you have written something which is worthy, Nobody is liable to pay for their parents because they invested money on their children at their childhood (because that investment was not “CONTRACTUAL”.
Similarly, nobody is liable to pay taxes to government too (because all that which government provides is not “CONTRACTUAL”. it is not chosen.

So what?  Everybody is free to decide, to decide whether to respect their parents for their efforts in the upbringing of their new-borne-babies in the best way they could. or not to respect them. Obviously, if the parents shows a reasonable and right attitude, which surely can be strict too, the children will pay respect and tribute too even after being adult, if the parents won’t be reasonable, the children won’t give a heck to them.

I remember one of my friend whose daughter loves her, but hates her father, because he was a criminal, alcoholic, bully and wife-beater, its simple truth, if you owe respect with the reason of being worthy and reasonable, you will get it freely, if you doesn’t worth respect, you won’t get it. Even Indians understands this.
Prahalad opposed his father (the ancient story of Hiranyakahyap).
So what does it shows?: It simply shows that you are not liable to pay respect for your parents, but if parents deserves respect on reasonified manner, then respecting them is right attitude, though it is to be volunatry decision of your own.

Similar way, Taxation cannot be forced or compulsory, and any form of compulsory taxation is crime, wrong and unethical, unreasonable. But Tax can be voluntary, and if a person voluntarily pays taxes, he cannot be said wrong by anymeans by anybody. Just like If Shravan Kumar served his parents, it was his own voluntary decision to do so. If Ram went out of ayodhya for 14 years, it was his own Voluntary decision to do so, infact his own father tried to stop him, but Ram chose his own way “VOLUNTARILY”.

Partially Correct. Partially Incorrect.
For a relation or a decision or a situtation to be termed as voluntary, there need to be an alternative from which one may opt for the best alternative for his existence and well-being or progress.
Similarly, for a relation or decision or situation to be termed as involuntary, there need to be another alternative which you are forced to NOT to choose or coerced to deny, where you might have opted for the another alternative if you were free.

Your relationship with your parents is an involuntary relationship

False. It can be involuntary, or coerced, or forced in some cases, not in all cases.

Life can be a burden for some in some cases, Life is not a burden though, living is not a forced duty. Similarly, living with parents is not a forced duty, though is the best and most appropriate innate way a sibling starts living. You cannot term it as involuntary relationship, it is open to voluntary decisions, can you provide any viable substitute for a kid of two-months other then living with her living mother/father, if they are alive?

By the way what are your views in general about life? Is it a voluntary choice to keep on existing, or is it a involuntary forced coercion on you? and who the heck forces you to keep living or existing?
Yet, in some cases, parents-children relationship can be involuntary.

Avataar(Rajesh Khanna): Nalayak, kya tujhe isie din ke liye din raat mehanat kar ke paal pos ke bada kiya tha?
Why didn’t you showed the actual scene of that story?
The guy sales out his father’s property without his consent and even without informing him, he pays no respect for his father’s property and individual rights, and that’s why the father calls him (worthless).  Anyways, the story goes to well courses again when Rajesh Khanna again makes his own life worthy with his own hardwork and reasonability.