[Timwi]

I didn't say that and I'm not sure what the fallacy you just employed is called.

It's cruel and inhumane to forcibly remove someone's access to something they are personally and emotionally invested in. It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.

The real challenge of parenting is to find ways to help your child without resorting to cruelty. Your fallacy is to assume that cruelty is necessary and that anyone who criticizes the cruelty must somehow be criticizing the desire to help.

[weweweoo]

Sometimes forcing a person out of their comfort zone is the best thing that can happen to them. In fact, nearly all good things that have happened in my life have required me to exit my comfort zone, which for a long time was playing games alone at home. Sometimes it has happened voluntarily, sometimes due to government (conscription) or social pressure (going to study in another city, because that's what you are supposed to do). In all cases, the outcome was good. My social skills improved, I got education, a job, wife, children, nice travel experiences.

[watwut]

> t's cruel and inhumane to forcibly remove someone's access to something they are personally and emotionally invested in.

Not always. And not in this case. It is not cruel and may be necessary.

> It's cruel and inhumane to force one's own view of a “good life” on someone who obviously disagrees.

Speaking about fallacies, this framing is clearly not what is going on in that situation. In either way, the kid is growing to be entirely unable to live without caregiver of a sort, so yes, it is duty of parents to intervene regardless of kids agreement.