Although these days almost parents worldwide claiming that they prefer to offer everything that their children request, I am in favour of the opinion that while it may be good in some situations, children should be limited by adults to avoid unexpected consequences when they become mature citizens.
There are good grounds for arguing that pampering is beneficial for building up happy families. The most persuasive argument is that family members may build strong relationships together through giving children food, toys, or time for playing. Small families, for example, not only may parents have more chances to communicate with their offspring, but they also may figure out kids’ habits and vocations. Another related issue is that if adults wish to comprehend the kids’ world, they need to offer what the kids ask for. Needless to say, this is particularly crucial for children offered enough physical goods to develop comprehensively.
Nevertheless, there is a myriad of strong arguments in favour of my stance for discouraging parents offering goods for kids due to certain demerits. This is because one extremely important principle is that when children satisfied whenever they request, they may lose the determination to gain successes. For children growing up in wealthy families with easy-going parents, it is apparent that children may not have core skills because they are used to receive everything simply without working to the bone. Last but not least, it is the responsibility of the parents to refuse unreasonable requests. As a result, it seems wrong for people to satisfy children unconditionally.
In view of these aforementioned discussions, I do accept that there are good reasons for giving goods for children, but my stance is that parents have to decide what to offer and refuse unappropriated requests because significant consequences are too dire to ignore.
Although these days almost
parents
worldwide claiming that they prefer to offer everything that their
children
request
, I am in
favour
of the opinion that while it may be
good
in
some
situations,
children
should
be limited
by adults to avoid unexpected consequences when they become mature citizens.
There are
good
grounds for arguing that pampering is beneficial for building up happy
families
. The most persuasive argument is that
family
members may build strong relationships together through giving
children
food, toys, or time for playing.
Small
families
,
for example
, not
only
may
parents
have more chances to communicate with their offspring,
but
they
also
may figure out
kids’
habits and vocations. Another related issue is that if adults wish to comprehend the
kids’
world, they need to offer what the
kids
ask for
. Needless to say, this is
particularly
crucial for
children
offered
enough
physical
goods
to develop
comprehensively
.
Nevertheless
, there is a myriad of strong arguments in
favour
of my stance for discouraging
parents
offering
goods
for
kids
due to certain demerits. This is
because
one
extremely
important
principle is that when
children
satisfied whenever they
request
, they may lose the determination to gain successes. For
children
growing up in wealthy
families
with easy-going
parents
, it is apparent that
children
may not have core
skills
because
they are
used to receive
everything
simply
without working to the bone. Last
but
not least, it is the responsibility of the
parents
to refuse unreasonable
requests
.
As a result
, it seems
wrong
for
people
to satisfy
children
unconditionally
.
In view of these aforementioned discussions, I do accept that there are
good
reasons for giving
goods
for
children
,
but
my stance is that
parents
have to
decide what to offer and refuse unappropriated
requests
because
significant consequences are too dire to
ignore
.