comment: >
  
  I’m going to start this off by saying I don’t have kids. Now my friend’s if they want to do something stupid and potentially dangerous, I’ll advise against it but I’m not going to stop them because they’re an adult, by now they fully understand the consequences and are capable of making the decision, children aren’t.
context: /u/NappyFlickz (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I don't think that is at all what this phrase means or how anyone uses it. 
  As far as I understood it, it means that you are in a guiding role. If you just "hang out" with your kid like you do with friends, you're not a good parent. 
  A friend is someone you can relate to, who makes you feel less alone and shares your experiences. 
  But a parent is your guide. You can't relate to them, cause they're at a very different state in their lives. But they can give you good advice unlike a friend.
  So you can't be both. Don't try to be the cool buddy dad. A kid needs a guiding figure who tells them what to do and where to go. This isn't really what a friend does nor what a friend should do. 
  I don't think it has anything to do with how much you love someone. >
  
  This, I will absolutely concede. !Delta
  I didn't mean to say that a parent should not see themselves in a position of authority above their child, but the distinction does make sense as to why the original saying that I based this CMV off of is made. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zuluportero (36∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  > is a proper parent not supposed to be your first friend, as well as the guide and leader that keeps you on track?
  A friend is an equal to you. Neither one of you has more power over the other one, and you both have equal authority to 'make' the other do something - 0 power. If you want to go to the store and your friend doesn't, then it's up to you to negotiate it out or figure out a compromise but you can't force your friend to come to the store and your friend can't force you to just wear what you have at home. A friend is someone you have secrets with away from your parent, and who you get to exercise your growing social skills with. They are people who, crucially, you can choose to drop and not interact with ever again. In general, parents do not fit that crtieria. (Absent specific circumstances).
  A parent needs a bit of separation from their child. They are *not* alike. A child and a parent have a relationship where one of them does have power and control over the other. Now, does that mean that there is no room for discussion and negotiation? Of course not - good parents should be open to the idea that they are wrong on some things and be willing to listen to their children.
  But there needs to be that dynamic there. If it's 3am and my five year old super wants to go to get nuggies and fries, well, that's cute but we're not having this discussion now. It doesn't matter what their feelings on the matter are - my feelings are more important. As a friend, that would be hurtful and offensive to say "your feelings are irrelevant, do what I tell you." But as a parent, it's necessary. In that moment, I am not their friend, we are not having a 'discussion' about this and there is no room for compromise or them to persuade me. Their feelings are valid (I, too, have had the 3am nuggies and fries wants) but they don't get to act on those feelings and I get to make the decision that they need to go back to bed.
  The same goes for many things. What clothes they wear, what classes they take, what hobbies they can pick up. There is room for them to have *input* and the older they get, the more that imput is both necessary and guiding for me, as their parent, but I make the final choices. I have more power in that relationship and it's my job as a parent to use it the way I feel is necessary to keep them safe, well, and healthy.
  We are at totally different points in our lives, and have totally different dynamics in our relationship. Crucially, as a parent, I have legal and ethical responsibilities that friends don't towards my child, such as making sure they go to school even if they don't want to, making them have medical procedures that they might not want or appreciate, and even disciplining them for things their friends might think of as 'non-issues'. 
  I don't want to be their friend, either. They need friends of their own age, to share experiences with for the first time, and to talk about things that I shouldn't be privy to. They need to develop their own social skills and their own feelings about things that I shouldn't be involved with. As an adult, they and I might have a different relationship, when we can be more like friends, but as a child, we are not. 
  Friends are people you choose to be with and to spend time with and make plans with. Parents have responsibilities to guide their tiny angry children who want nothing more than to do stupid dangerous things and figure out how the toaster works with a knife to adulthood with all their limbs intact, with social skills, and a vague idea of 'good citizenry'. >
  
  
  A friend is an equal to you.
  
  damn okay guess I’ll tell my boss we aren’t friends like we thought >
  
  I mean being friends with your boss does come with a lot of caveats and the biggest one is... are they your friend or your boss? What happens if layoffs come around and your name is one of those picked? What happens if they have to tell you that they're not promoting you because you just aren't that good at the job? What about if they have to tell you that you're a good friend but a bad employee? There's a reason that being friends with your boss isn't a good thing. You can be friendly but being friends? That's a bad mix. >
  
  
  It's universally accepted by people with more than two braincells to rub together that a true friend who truly cares about you, is someone who will speak to and deal with you in truth,for better or worse, regardless of whether it makes you happy or sad. They'll have your back in the face of trouble and adversity, laugh with you in moments of pure joy and happiness, and encourage you to achieve your goals in the healthiest ways possible. A true friend also cares about you enough to warn you when you set down the wrong path or fall in with the wrong crowd, and lay into you if you refuse to listen. They will have zero qualms hurting your feelings if there is no alternative to get your head on straight. Bearing those aforementioned qualities mind, is that not what a parent is supposed to do? Based on those qualities, is a proper parent not supposed to be your first friend, as well as the guide and leader that keeps you on track?
  
  You're ignoring one very glaring thing, it's a two way street. Yes those are things you do for your friend, but what your ignoring is things friends do for you. You do not rely on your 8 year old child when you are in trouble, you do not expect your 14 year old child to be truthful and honest with you, You do no expect your 6 year old child to encourage you to achieve your goals in healthiest way possible. Friends are people who you rely on, and you simply cannot rely on your child as you would a friend, at least not until they grow up. 
  Another main difference between a child and a friend is, you can warn your friend when they are going down the wrong path but you can't discipline them for it, you can't send them to their room without ice cream because they didn't do their homework (or for a more adult example look for a job). What you are describing is merely overlapping qualities between the friends dynamic and the parent/child dynamic while ignoring all the mutually exclusive qualities. >
  
  If that is the predominant rationale behind the statement, then it makes perfect sense. Thanks for the response. !Delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DogTheGoodBoy (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  
  A true friend also cares about you enough to warn you when you set down the wrong path or fall in with the wrong crowd, and lay into you if you refuse to listen. They will have zero qualms hurting your feelings if there is no alternative to get your head on straight.
  
  I don't think little children conceptualize this very well, which is what the phrase refers to.  
  A little kid might not understand why they cannot have candy right before bed time. A true friend would give them candy. >
  
  The most similar dynamic is can you be someone's boss/friend? >
  
  I would say closer would be trying to be a teacher/friend to a kid. Which is a huge NO. >
  
  
  A true friend also cares about you enough to warn you when you set down the wrong path or fall in with the wrong crowd, and lay into you if you refuse to listen. They will have zero qualms hurting your feelings if there is no alternative to get your head on straight.
  
  All of these qualities are going to be true of both good friends and good parents. It does not, however, logically follow that parents are (or should be) friends. The relationships have  other differences.
  A kid's friends are typically his or her peers. Although my friend may be more inclined to listen to me than to a random stranger, I have no authority over my friend and I cannot force my friend to behave in certain ways. Nor can my friend exercise such force over me. If I need to enforce rules on my friend, I can do so through social pressure or by summoning an authority, like our parents.
  Parents are not their children's peers. Parents exercise authority and control over their children and have the power to make decisions on their kids' behalf until their kids reach adulthood or become legally emancipated. That power is coupled with a responsibility to teach their children how to be good adults.
  To say that you can't be both a parent and friend is to say that you can't both have authority and not. You can, of course, have a great deal of fun with your kids, and it's a great thing when parents do. The catch is that in order to exercise your responsibility toward your kids, you need to maintain a line of authority that doesn't exist in friendship. Nobody's saying you shouldn't like or care about your kids. >
  
  I would tell all my friends to fuck right off if they attempted to parent me. That me just past college. In primary and high school? That's nothing short of a fight. 
  'Tanaka I forbid you to go out with that girl.' OK. I don't remember asking your opinion nevermind what gives you the balls to think you can order me to even wipe my ass. You're my friend. Your role is advisor. That's it. I live my life the way I choose and I chew the consequences of my actions. You don't have the right to so more than question me. 
  That idea has been taken out of context. It never meant 'dont be nice to your kids.' it's 'if you have to be nice or a good parent, be a damn good parent.' As friends we bear a lot less responsibility for our friends. Im no parent, the most I've had is babysitting lots of my younger cousins. And even then I can tell you the difference is immediate. 
  If my friend gets run over while being dumb on the street don't even try to tell me I should have known and kept him safe. I have neither the responsibility bor authority over him to compel him to act. My cousin gets run over on my watch? 110% I share blame. Because I was in charge. I should have been watching. I should have been careful. It was my job and I failed. My friend and my cousin who I babysit aren't the same. I love them both. I care for them and treat them both well. But only one do I have authority and duty of care over, so only one do I have to accept the responsibility for. >
  
  
  That idea has been taken out of context. It never meant 'dont be nice to your kids.'
  
  I agree that it shouldn't be viewed in that lens, yet I speak/listen to an alarming amount of parents that excessively antagonize their children, using that statement as justification. 
  Of course, that leads into the matter of whether or not intent/purpose defines the meaning of a phrase. Because if the saying is meant to justify being a dickhead of a parent, then the statement itself is suspect. But I also suppose that falls into the realm of semantics, which isn't entirely relevant to this CMV.
  Fair enough, !Delta >
  
  
  I agree that it shouldn't be viewed in that lens, yet I speak/listen to an alarming amount of parents that excessively antagonize their children, using that statement as justification. 
  
  The issue isn't the "friendship" it's the antagonization of the kids.  Essentially, just call bad behaviors as bad, and not the rationale behind it.  Like, if a parent get's upset at a kid for wanting to play, they may say "i'm not their friend" but the response to that is "yes, but you aren't parenting them well either.  You are trying to teach them to fear you to make your life easier, rather than trying to teach them tools they need for making their life easier." >
  
  
  You can change my view by proving to me why it is less important, or rather completely unnecessary to earn your child's respect and love, and more important to simply feed, clothe and house them, and provide for their education.
  
  To start with, it IS more important to feed, clothe and house a child.  Look at the hierarchy of needs.  The first two are "physiological and safety"  Which food, clothing and shelter fall under.  After that, is "belonging and love".
  That said, I think the issue here is this: you can get respect and love from a kid (and provide them with respect and love) without being their friend in the process.
  Let's give an example: A friend (Jon) of Timmy (your kid) announces a birthday party for Tuesday.  But your family already has plans for Tuesday: Timmy's Grandfather's birthday which was already committed to, and put money towards.  A friend might try to come up with a way to have Timmy go to Jon's part to have fun.  But as a parent, you need to teach them that sometimes other commitments come first.  You also can acknowledge and respect the emotions that they are feeling, and help provide the emotional tools for regulating the sadness Timmy is feeling for going to Grandpa's instead of Jon's.  You can ensure that they are loved, without just being a friend to them.
  Additionally, your definition of "true friendship" is weird.  You are defining it by the actions, rather than the connection between two people.  Like, let's say Timmy and Jon are friends.  They always play at school together.  They enjoy time together.  But they are also 5.  Do 5 year olds know when the appropriate time for "tough love" is?  Does that make them "not really friends?"  Of course not.
  What you described instead is a "good, healthy relationship between people" and declared that to be "true friendship".  But your definition doesn't even require them to like each other.  Which is a huge defining factor of most people's friendships. >
  
  
  You can change my view by proving to me why it is less important, or rather completely unnecessary to earn your child's respect and love, and more important to simply feed, clothe and house them, and provide for their education.
  
  This has nothing to do with anything and is further ridiculous. Are you talking about the friend thing or just shitting on parents?
  Friends might, as you have, say they think you're going down the wrong path.
  They do not, however, set your bedtime, set rules for you, ground you, take your electronics, tell you you cannot do X, have to eat your vegetables, not just cheetos, and on and on. Friends can set boundaries for THEMSELVES, like I can't be around you if you keep acting like that, but they can't set boundaries for YOU that parents need to do, like you are not going to continue to act like that.
  Parents are parents.
  That does NOT mean they shouldn't have a close relationship with their kids. Of course they should. They should be friendly, more than friendly, but they're not your friends.
  It means they have a larger responsibility that comes with setting hard boundaries -- not personal ones, life ones. Like no, you can't go to the party, you did X and you were warned that was the consequence.
  That's parenting. Parenting is having a kid yell they hate you and saying 'that's ok, you can be mad, you can hate me. I love you, and you still can't have your phone back until your grades improve.' >
  
  You shouldn't make decisions for a friend. But you have to make decisions for a child. If a friend gets seriously injured, and they don't want to go to the hospital, you can't force them to. If your child gets seriously injured and they don't want to go to the hospital, you can and should force them to. >
  
  I think what people mean when they say you can’t be your child’s friend is that (when they are young at least) you have to sometimes say no to them and take charge of their behavior in a way that a friend cannot and should not. A very good friend will tell you if they think you’re making a bad decision but they won’t physically try to prevent you from doing it. 
  As a parent sometimes you have to do that. Your kid can’t go play in a busy street no matter how bad they want to. If you know they aren’t ready to learn to ski or wakeboard or whatever you don’t let them do that shit. Friends are not in command of your life like a parent sometimes has to be. 
  With that said, I do think saying you can’t be both a parent and a friend is a bit of an exaggeration. Sometimes you have to take off the friend hat and put on the parent hat but I am absolutely my 6-year-old’s friend. We play video games together and read stories and lots of other fun stuff and it’s a blast. And I think when your kid becomes an adult the parent relationship transitions mostly into friend territory, ideally. The whole goal is to help them become an adult who can handle things on their own, after all!