How Children REALLY React To Control

I've about decided to seriously cut back our resident troll's diet. I'm
willing to respond to stuff that's reasonably new and interesting, or where
I think of new angles, but there's no point repeating the same arguments in
message after message.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

On the other hand, I'm less convinced that expecting all parents to live
up to the standard of alertness, creativity, and energy you set would be
reasonable or realistic.
------------------
If you teach it in school with role-playing, and make any other
approach to children ILLEGAL and a TORTURABLE offense against the
State, they will pay attention. First day: Show movie of parent
being publically tortured, then explain what he did and why they
may wish to avoid that for their future!!!!

So much for your credibility in claiming that coercive techniques can't work
in shaping people's behavior. :-)

But you missed my point. For non-coercive parenting techniques to be
expected to match your results when used by others, it is not sufficient
that parents stop coercing their children. They would also have to match
your positive efforts.

The asymmetric nature of the
situation makes it a good bit harder for parents to come up with the
time and energy to do things for their children than it would be if the
children could give the parents a comparable amount of help in return.
-----------------------
You sound like you're still quite immature, needy, and greedy.
Such people as you should NOT have kids yet!

Believe it or not, there are more people in the world than just you and me.
Some of them are single parents who have to work long hours, and who come
home tired.

Further, there is nothing in your description of what a parent owes a child
that includes making a trip to the thrift store to buy a child dishes or
teaching the chid how to make GI Joe hang gliders. By YOUR OWN definition,
at least as stated thus far, you went above and beyond the call of duty.

This all sounds like blabber. Why not give an example and I'll tell
you how a sensible parent SHOULD behave?

Suppose a four-year-old needs to go to daycare so his parents can go
to work, but the child refuses to go?
-----------------------------
Then you find other work or get a co-parent to stay home like you're
supposed to till they LIKE the idea. They will usually like the idea
next week, so if you wait, you'll find they become ready on their own.

That's not what I call being pragmatic. Nor is piling that burden on top of
the requirement for the parents to provide food, clothing, and shelter for
the child anything resembling my concept of fair. But of course your
concept of fairness is so focused on the children that it completely ignores
the parents. (Except, of course, when it's threatening to kill or torture
them.)

If the Geneva Convention allows a prison guard to punish a prisoner for
refusing to cooperate in a particular situation, or for refusing to stop
an
impermissible action,
--------------------
It does indeed.


I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a chance
to
reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.
-------------------------------
Threat or pain is illegal under Geneva.
Physical force without punishment to move a prisoner is acceptible.

In which case as long as the thing that's done after the guard counts to
three is a legitimate form of punishment under the convention, counting to
three would be allowed under the convention, right?

So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided.
---------------
Doesn't relate to children, they are owed support. They ONLY have an
obligation to learn the skill before they leave home, not to do your
work for you. Once they come to their near-adulthood, they can be
given responsibility equal to an adults ONLY IF they are given the
absolute freedom of an adult, and ONLY then. At this age they move
elsewhere in other cultures, about age 12 or 13.

What freedom does your model give an adult that it doesn't give a child?

A roommate that does not do his part to make the relationship work
can be thrown out, or can have his roommate leave him to pay the rent
and
bills himself.
-----------------
Except that you incurred the debt for their support by bringing them
into the world without their informed consent or express permission.

Aww, the poor little babies, forced to be born instead of being killed in
their mothers' wombs the way their parents would have done if the parents
were good, humane, decent people.

But your philosophy tells children that they should be able to expect
something in return for even those kinds of basics. That creates an
asymmetric relationship, not a symmetric one.
-----------------------------
No, beyond the debt their parents incurred to them for their support,
it is equal, you just don't like paying your debts I believe!! You
seem to believe that when you owe someone else money, that you somehow
get to order them around in return for that inconvenience!!!!

I don't believe that saving a person's life without his "informed consent or
express permission" causes me to owe him a debt, and neither do I believe
that giving a child life creates a unilateral debt in which the parents owe
the child something but the child owes nothing to the parents.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

On the other hand, I'm less convinced that expecting all parents to live
up to the standard of alertness, creativity, and energy you set would be
reasonable or realistic.
------------------
If you teach it in school with role-playing, and make any other
approach to children ILLEGAL and a TORTURABLE offense against the
State, they will pay attention. First day: Show movie of parent
being publically tortured, then explain what he did and why they
may wish to avoid that for their future!!!!

So much for your credibility in claiming that coercive techniques can't work
in shaping people's behavior. :-)
-----------------------------
There's nothing wrong with threatening dire consequences for CRIME,
or doing damage to enemies of the People you have NO reason to care
about. We care about our children, however, and we want to preevent
them from committing crimes that will see them become enemies of the
People and having their human value ignored thereafter.


But you missed my point. For non-coercive parenting techniques to be
expected to match your results when used by others, it is not sufficient
that parents stop coercing their children. They would also have to match
your positive efforts.
--------------------------
Do no harm, even if you can do better as well. Nothing positive will
ever mitigate concurrent abuse.


The asymmetric nature of the
situation makes it a good bit harder for parents to come up with the
time and energy to do things for their children than it would be if the
children could give the parents a comparable amount of help in return.
-----------------------
You sound like you're still quite immature, needy, and greedy.
Such people as you should NOT have kids yet!

Believe it or not, there are more people in the world than just you and me.
Some of them are single parents who have to work long hours, and who come
home tired.
------------------------------
Sure. They need social help from the society.


Further, there is nothing in your description of what a parent owes a child
that includes making a trip to the thrift store to buy a child dishes or
teaching the chid how to make GI Joe hang gliders. By YOUR OWN definition,
at least as stated thus far, you went above and beyond the call of duty.
------------------------------
Not to my way of thinking, and in future societies children will be
raised by everyone so they can have those opportunities that some of
us can offer, but they will also be protected from abuse by the Majority
and their parents will be severely punished if they hurt
them instead of surrendering them if parents can't behave themselves.


This all sounds like blabber. Why not give an example and I'll tell
you how a sensible parent SHOULD behave?

Suppose a four-year-old needs to go to daycare so his parents can go
to work, but the child refuses to go?
-----------------------------
Then you find other work or get a co-parent to stay home like you're
supposed to till they LIKE the idea. They will usually like the idea
next week, so if you wait, you'll find they become ready on their own.

That's not what I call being pragmatic.
--------------
When the ultimate pragmatism is with respect to the child it is.


Nor is piling that burden on top of
the requirement for the parents to provide food, clothing, and shelter for
the child anything resembling my concept of fair.
---------------
I believe those raising society's children should be supported in that
by the society. That will be implemented soon.


But of course your
concept of fairness is so focused on the children that it completely ignores
the parents. (Except, of course, when it's threatening to kill or torture
them.)
----------------------
Keeping one's ****ing hands to oneself is the minimal requirement of
civilization.


If the Geneva Convention allows a prison guard to punish a prisoner for
refusing to cooperate in a particular situation, or for refusing to stop
an
impermissible action,
--------------------
It does indeed.

I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a chance
to
reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.
-------------------------------
Threat or pain is illegal under Geneva.
Physical force without punishment to move a prisoner is acceptible.

In which case as long as the thing that's done after the guard counts to
three is a legitimate form of punishment under the convention, counting to
three would be allowed under the convention, right?
----------------------------
No. That constitutes threat of harm.


So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided.
---------------
Doesn't relate to children, they are owed support. They ONLY have an
obligation to learn the skill before they leave home, not to do your
work for you. Once they come to their near-adulthood, they can be
given responsibility equal to an adults ONLY IF they are given the
absolute freedom of an adult, and ONLY then. At this age they move
elsewhere in other cultures, about age 12 or 13.

What freedom does your model give an adult that it doesn't give a child?
----------------------------
A very young child can be moved by the parent to protect them, or
because the child must accompany the parents where they must go.
This changes as the child develops their own clear desires for where
they wish to be. However, they deserve an apology for any move they
don't like even when very young. The parent always has the right to
rescue them, and anyone has the right to rescue anyone anyway, but
heaven help you if you start pretending someone needs rescue if you
just don't like their life choices.


A roommate that does not do his part to make the relationship work
can be thrown out, or can have his roommate leave him to pay the rent
and
bills himself.
-----------------
Except that you incurred the debt for their support by bringing them
into the world without their informed consent or express permission.

Aww, the poor little babies, forced to be born instead of being killed in
their mothers' wombs the way their parents would have done if the parents
were good, humane, decent people.
--------------------------------
No one is killed as a fetus, because no one IS a fetus.


But your philosophy tells children that they should be able to expect
something in return for even those kinds of basics. That creates an
asymmetric relationship, not a symmetric one.
-----------------------------
No, beyond the debt their parents incurred to them for their support,
it is equal, you just don't like paying your debts I believe!! You
seem to believe that when you owe someone else money, that you somehow
get to order them around in return for that inconvenience!!!!

I don't believe that saving a person's life without his "informed consent or
express permission" causes me to owe him a debt, and neither do I believe
that giving a child life creates a unilateral debt in which the parents owe
the child something but the child owes nothing to the parents.
----------------------------------
Tough ****. The State does, even now.
You would seem to be antisocial.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

LOL!

Doan
----------
You incompetent spoofing moron, you left your addy in the post you
falsely attributed to Chris!!
Steve

LOL! You lying, stupid, pity excuse of a **** spewing mouth full of
obxious verbal garbage, ask Chris and he will tell you that is an
exact quote!

Doan
------------
There were no "quotes"!! You ****ed up, you old liar!
Steve

Run out of "****"? Shall I put more in YOUR MOUHT? :-)
BTW, I like your "**** you, Chris" post. ;-)

Doan

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

(And before you talk about how
wonderfully children who are raised with freedom will invariably treat
others,
--------------------------
They will treat others as those others deserve to be treated.

Look at where treating each other the way you think the other deserves to be
treated is taking you and Doan.
---------------
In real life we'd kill him and that would end.

LOL! Violence begets violence!
-------------------------
Not when you kill enough of them.

Even the Nazi can't kill that many! ;-)


other worse and worse. Being able to disagree with people but still treat
them in a civil way is an extremely important skill in preserving
civilization.
----------------
Not with abusive criminals.
Pearls before swine, the best reason for prisons and execution.
Some people will abuse the privilege of you even arguing with them.

There are mental institutions for people like you. :-)
----------------------------
Only in your fantasy world.

My fantasy doesn't include you! ;-)


look at how you're treating me. That alone proves that it doesn't
always work.)
------------------------------
Don't posture and pretend like a little manipulative ****.
Disagreeing with you isn't any "crime"!!

I've committed no crime against you,

That's my point. There is more to maintaining a civilized society than just
not committing crimes against each other.
-----------------------------
Nonsense.
If what you promote is wrong and criminal, then YOU'RE the one
who is being inherently uncivil.

LOL!

I have told you the Truth, just
one you simply don't like, and I have told you what I think of you,
nothing more.

Nothing more? How many times did you tell me what you think of me? Just
enough for me to know, or do you keep making an ongoing effort to be
insulting?
----------------------------
Insulting evil till it stops and dies is a duty, an honor, and a
requirement of conscience.

That is why I am throwing your "****" back to you! ;-)
----------------------
It was your **** from your mouth, you ****-mouth.

Nope! **** can only come from may asshole. How it got to your mouth? ;-)


Trying to hurt people with words is not something that we generally consider
serious enough to constitute a crime, but it is nonetheless a way of hurting
people.
---------------------
I only hurt those who ****ing deserve it.

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid.

In my view, the difference between what you are doing and assault
and battery is far more a matter of degree than a matter of basic kind.
-----------------------
We are in a battle for the world. Get used to it.
I believe that we should simply kill people who promote violations
of the rights of others.

I like this one. :-)


Perhaps more importantly, what would you think of a parent who told his
child what he thinks of him in the manner you're telling me what you think
of me?
--------------------
The child wouldn't deserve that, the abusive parent does.
There are bullies and victims, you kill bullies, not victims.

LOL!


If your standard for how adults should treat children is that it
should be the same as how adults are expected to treat each other, consider
the implications of how you are treatimg me in that context.
-----------------------
If you're against that then you're a political criminal.

And you should be "killed", Nathan. :-)
-------------------------------
Truth.

I told you! :-)

As for whether or not what you've told me is Truth, you believe that it is
and I believe that most of it is not. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing
another useful skill in maintaining civilization, the skill of
distingusihing between personal beliefs and that which can be clearly
proven.
-----------------------
Nobody needs to prove **** to someone who is assaulting him.
Any even slightly abused child has every right to merely kill his
parents.

LOL!


Let me get this straight. If parents and children disagree, it is
automatically the parents, the people who have lived more than twice as
long and generally have a significantly higher level of maturity, that
are
wrong? I don't see that as making any sense at all.
----------------------------------
If you and the person you're pushing around and bullying disagree,
then yes, it is your fault because YOU'RE pushing them around.

Re-read what you wrote earlier: "If you cannot convince your children of
that by reason and logic, then you're merely wrong in your beliefs." That
is a very different thing from saying that parents are wrong in making and
enforcing rules based on their beliefs.
-----------------------------------
Nope, same thing.
That was what you were talking about convincing them of.

More pearls! ;-)
-------------------
You're the swine, you wouldn't know.

LOL! But you know the swine, don't you? ;-)


would decide that they wanted to take a dangerous illegal drug, would
you
want for them to get the drug or want for them not to get it? If you
would
want them to get it, I have the same contempt for you that you have
toward parents who spank.
--------------------------
If your "children" are sufficiently able to research, inquire, and
obtain a drug against your desires, then no coercion of any kind
is likely to do more than endanger you if you try to get in their
way physically. It isn't likely to be a situation in which they
are unaware of your opinion. The most constuctive thing you can
do is to maintain civility with them so that you have their ear
and then you can tell them of your worries, and any information
about the drug that you might give them. Still, if you DID have
a friendship relationship with them, one devoid of any coercion,
ONLY THEN would you even be LIKELY to know of their drug use
ANYWAY! Any coercive relatiionship you have with them will serve
to prevent you even being ALLOWED by them to know of their drug
use. As a parent *I* would rather be uncoercive and KNOW what my
kids were interested in, and be able to speak with them without
being ignored and dismissed, than to coerce them and lose that
knowledge entirely!!

First of all, you completely missed the fact that I was using a fairly
extreme situation to provide a clear counterexample against your claim ------------------
You also mean an unreal one. Authoritarians always try to push what-if
over the top this way so desperately in order to deny others freedom.
It's disingenuous and dishonest, nothing more.

LOL!

I was illustrating an entire category of situations
that you had been ignoring, and wasn't really trying to find one of the
cases from that category where coercion would be most effective.
----------------
Unreality isn't effective.

Reality, what a concept! ;-)


I'm curious: when you were a child, how much did you tell your parents about
things you did that you knew they wouldn't approve of?
---------------------
Since they never ever tried to stop me, I told them everything I
thought of even vaguely.

Your parents must be proud! ;-)
------------
Indeed.

Is that why they didn't kill you before you turned 3 month olds? ;-)


And to your
knowledge, how much did your own children tell you about it when they did
things they they knew you wouldn't approve of?
--------------------
Since we did the same, they told us everything.

LOL!

The idea that non-coercive
parents will know more about what's going on sounds good in theory, but if
children's desire to avoid parental disapproval shuts down communication
anyhow, the choice you are presenting is a false one.
------------------------------
If any such shuts down communication, then it is because of
authoritarian abuse of their rights.

LOL!

Two generations of non-interference with kids in my family
proves I'm right.

LOL!

Again, respect and pragmatism is the watchword.
Coercion never works, it only blinds you and separates you
from them as their enemy.

You keep using the word "pragmatism," but in situations where parents expect
coercion to work, coercion is in fact pragmatic.
------------------------
Coercion won't work, and even if it actually manages to prevent
anything, it creates far worse problems next!!

LOL!


Unfortunately, your model of human relationships seems to allow only for
the type of love that gives people what they want without regard to
whether or not it is good for them, not for the type of love that causes
parents to want to make sure their children will NOT get what they want
if it is bad for them.
-----------------------------
Our kids were raised without coercion, and they never did anything
without talking to us about it. If we had been coercive, they would
have gone into secrecy and we'd have been shut out. And since they
had no worry that we'd act to stop them, they ALSO TOOK OUR ADVICE,
JUST AS IF THEY WERE ADULT FRIENDS OF OURS!! They had no impression
that we were simply dishonoring them and attempting to control them,
so they trusted us!!

You make it sound as if your children always did what you thought they
should in every single instance.
----------------------------
No, what THEY thought they should. What WE thought wasn't relevant to
their final decision, nor was it our ****ing business.

LOL!


in the direction of the stereotypical spoiled brat who knows
that if he or she doesn't cooperate, harmony will still probably
come when the parents give up.
----------------
A child wanting what they want for themselves is NOT a "spoiled"
or any kind of "brat"

Who ever said that merely wanting something makes a child a a brat?
---------------
You did. Above. You implied that demanding one's own freedom made
a child a "spiled brat" merely because that demand disturbed your
high-handed notion of harmony!

I implied that creating disharmony and making it impossible for parents to
get harmony back
------------------
"Harmony", to you, is your ****ing vicious code-word for obediance.
You shiould be beaten and flayed alive till you recant your overstepping
viciousness, or die.

Shall I reminde you that Steven is a "never-spanked" boy? ;-)
-------------------
The never-hit child is intolerant of abuse and kills its perps.

So the "never-hit" child learned that violence is ok! ;-)


There
are two basic categories of behavior that I associate with the
"spoiled brat" stereotype. One is the use of tantrums or similar
types of psychological coercion to get what they want. (I see
nothing inherently wrong with, "Please, please, please can I have
that?" although it can become psychologically coercive if a child
persists after being told no in the hope that a parent will agree
just so the child will stop asking.)
------------------
Children only throw tantrums when they believe that you're not on
THEIR side. If they believe you would get something for them if you
could, because you showed interest in what they wanted, then they
would never get that frustrated. You just have to prove to them
that you are as much on their side as on your own.

I won't try to quote your explanation about what you did in your family, but
I'm always impressed by that kind of example of parental creativity. It's
the sort of way of heading off problems that I wholeheartedly approve of,
assuming parents are willing to invest the time and effort required. And I
absolutely love the way it helped the kids get what they wanted and taught
them about managing money wisely at the same time.

On the other hand, I'm less convinced that expecting all parents to live up
to the standard of alertness, creativity, and energy you set would be
reasonable or realistic.
------------------
If you teach it in school with role-playing, and make any other
approach to children ILLEGAL and a TORTURABLE offense against the
State, they will pay attention. First day: Show movie of parent
being publically tortured, then explain what he did and why they
may wish to avoid that for their future!!!!

I heard this is the technique used by PolPot in the Killing Field.

Humans would probably be far happier being ruled by non-compromising
humorless alien robots who threatened immediate torture for any criminal
misbehavior. That is my ideal form of law-enforcement.
If you don't believe in a law enough to kill violators, then you're
not so sure of that law anyway!

All humans have been contaminated. We need to start the world at year
zero! ;-)
----------------------------
Speak for yourself, scum.

****! ;-)


In an essentially symmetric relationship of
adults, the time and money people spend helping each other is likely to more
or less balance out. But in a parent-child relationship, especially with
young children, parents have to provide far more help in satisfying the
children's needs and desires than the children could possibly provide in
satisfying the parents' needs and desires.
-----------
A matter of definition. Children are EXTREMELY rewarding.

That's why we should allow INFANTICIDE! ;---)
------------
In your case, absolutely.
The only explanation for you is that you were unwanted.

LOL! Ask anyone on this newsgroup if you wanted here. ;-)


The asymmetric nature of the
situation makes it a good bit harder for parents to come up with the time
and energy to do things for their children than it would be if the children
could give the parents a comparable amount of help in return.
-----------------------
You sound like you're still quite immature, needy, and greedy.
Such people as you should NOT have kids yet!

LOL!

Which means that you have a technique that worked well for you, and could
presumably work similarly well for other parents who are willing to put in
the time and effort (give or take a bit, depending on the children's
personalities and how good the parents are at implementing the technique),
but that is no more than a partial solution for those who aren't willing or
able to invest as much effort in satisfying their children's desires.
-------------------
If the LAW treats abuse of children as tantamount to your abuse of
a helpless unfamiliar alien ambassador to earth who is left in your
care, who could evaporate the earth if you harm him, then you will
get the proper respect for your child, or you won't live very long,
because the other humans will kill you if you screw up because of
your greedy venality.

LOL!


And I might add that if parents make a habit of giving in to children's
desires before they start throwing a tantrum, they are spoiling thier kids
just as much as they would if they waited for their child to throw the
tantrum.
----------------------
Tanrums result from a LONG and SYSTEMATIC failure to give due
attention to your child's NEED for a learning environment that is
stimulating and which they have the right to expect you to render.
There is NO such thing as "spoiled", it is a Rightist Myth.
The term is used to blame the child for the parent's failure.
Rightists are chronically abused immature children.


In essence, the risk of a tantrum coerces parents into acceding to
their children's wishes whether the parents want to do so or not.
----------------------
As is the parents obligation because they decided to have a child.
In the future the only out from criminal prosecution will be to
surrender any child you can't be civil to, and be billed for the
rest of us raising them properly. When you have a child, you lose
some of your rights. Live with it or die from it.

LOL!


If the
parents don't mind having that happen, and view the risk of possible future
adjustment problems if the kids have a harder time getting what they want
later in life as acceptable, that's not a problem. But I see no basis for
creating a legal or moral requirement for parents to give children what they
want or find a suitable substitute in order to avert tantrums.
---------------------
Children have absolutely NO need to adapt to larger adult society
UNTIL they more closely near the age where they will have to. Your
pretense that they do is offensive and wrong and merely an excuse
for your greed and immaturity and inability to live up to your
parental obligations. Such immaturity and cowardice as yours always
tries to shift blame onto innocent victims.

LOL!


This all sounds like blabber. Why not give an example and I'll tell
you how a sensible parent SHOULD behave?

Suppose a four-year-old needs to go to daycare so his parents can go to
work, but the child refuses to go?
-----------------------------
Then you find other work or get a co-parent to stay home like you're
supposed to till they LIKE the idea. They will usually like the idea
next week, so if you wait, you'll find they become ready on their own.

You can talk to them about it, about work and money and such, and they
will often make an admirably mature decision, even if it takes a little
time, but they deserve that choice and the opportunity to decide!!

LOL!


This is as it should be, because actually, in real human life, you
cannot control any other living person but YOURSELF, and
pretending that you can or should, and that others should obey
you, is LUNACY!!!

Perfect, total, complete control over another human being is impossible.
-------------------
No. You absolutely REQUIRE another's assent and cooperation or else
you are achieving nothing. NO "control" of another is possible, as
you cannot control their body.

You can play word games all you want,
----------
This is NO "word-game", this is DEADLY serious.

I know, I know. Now take your daily medicine! :--)

No respone, "****-mouth" STEVE? ;-)


but from a practical perspective, if
one human being could not achieve significant control over another, slavery
would never have existed.
------------------------
You cannot exert control over another without doing damage to them.
And the more control, the more damage.

With enemy prisoners you don't care about it doesn't matter, and
even with slaves you care less but you can't actually force them
to do what you like only damage them if they don't, however with
your children it does matter!! You don't get to damage them without
them turning on you, and you losing the game of life and family.


LOL!

But in situations where a person knows that misbehavior will be caught
and punished (for example, if a parent counts to three to get a child to
do something or stop doing something), the level of control can be ----------------------------
That sort of attitude of high-handed mind-control toward a child
is nothing but a desperate mental illness, a perversion, a sickness!

You make me want to vomit.


That violates even the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of
Prisoners. If you treat a child that way you are systematically
creating nothing but a bullying monster with demons inside.

If the Geneva Convention allows a prison guard to punish a prisoner for
refusing to cooperate in a particular situation, or for refusing to stop an
impermissible action,
--------------------
It does indeed.


LOL!

I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a chance to
reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.
-------------------------------
Threat or pain is illegal under Geneva.
Physical force without punishment to move a prisoner is acceptible.

LOL!


But your attitude, if I understand it correctly,
seems to be that children are entitled to those things for free with
absolutely no return obligations whatsoever to their parents, and
that parents must go beyond those things if they want to offer their
children something in negotiations.
------------------------
Precisely, a parent can do a great number of extra things for and
with a child to help them in their numerous quests. These are the
things that FRIENDS do for one another, even if one owes the other
some money.

This interpretation distorts the balance of power very heavily in favor of
the children compared with the normal balance of power in relationships
between adults.
--------------------
No. That is your erroneous impression relative to the considering
past abuses of children as a sick "norm". It is absolutely equal,
given that in addition the parent ABSOLUTELY OWES the child their
physical and emotional support.


LOL!

With adult roommates, behaving in a way that does not
bother your roommate too much (for example, not playing the stereo too loud
and not making too much of a mess in shared areas) is part of the basic
deal.
---------------
Yes.

LOL!


So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided.
---------------
Doesn't relate to children, they are owed support. They ONLY have an
obligation to learn the skill before they leave home, not to do your
work for you. Once they come to their near-adulthood, they can be
given responsibility equal to an adults ONLY IF they are given the
absolute freedom of an adult, and ONLY then. At this age they move
elsewhere in other cultures, about age 12 or 13.


LOL!

A roommate that does not do his part to make the relationship work
can be thrown out, or can have his roommate leave him to pay the rent and
bills himself.
-----------------
Except that you incurred the debt for their support by bringing them
into the world without their informed consent or express permission.

That's why you should kill them before they are 3 months old! ;-)
---------------------------
The ones like you we should kill any old time.

Come over, coward!

But your philosophy tells children that they should be able to expect
something in return for even those kinds of basics. That creates an
asymmetric relationship, not a symmetric one.
-----------------------------
No, beyond the debt their parents incurred to them for their support,
it is equal, you just don't like paying your debts I believe!! You
seem to believe that when you owe someone else money, that you somehow
get to order them around in return for that inconvenience!!!!

LOL!

I'd advise you to go try that with the BANK!!!
Steve

LOL!

Doan
---------
Steve

According to toto, Steve is not a "troll". ;-)

Doan

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


I've about decided to seriously cut back our resident troll's diet. I'm
willing to respond to stuff that's reasonably new and interesting, or where
I think of new angles, but there's no point repeating the same arguments in
message after message.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

On the other hand, I'm less convinced that expecting all parents to live
up to the standard of alertness, creativity, and energy you set would be
reasonable or realistic.
------------------
If you teach it in school with role-playing, and make any other
approach to children ILLEGAL and a TORTURABLE offense against the
State, they will pay attention. First day: Show movie of parent
being publically tortured, then explain what he did and why they
may wish to avoid that for their future!!!!

So much for your credibility in claiming that coercive techniques can't work
in shaping people's behavior. :-)

But you missed my point. For non-coercive parenting techniques to be
expected to match your results when used by others, it is not sufficient
that parents stop coercing their children. They would also have to match
your positive efforts.

The asymmetric nature of the
situation makes it a good bit harder for parents to come up with the
time and energy to do things for their children than it would be if the
children could give the parents a comparable amount of help in return.
-----------------------
You sound like you're still quite immature, needy, and greedy.
Such people as you should NOT have kids yet!

Believe it or not, there are more people in the world than just you and me.
Some of them are single parents who have to work long hours, and who come
home tired.

Further, there is nothing in your description of what a parent owes a child
that includes making a trip to the thrift store to buy a child dishes or
teaching the chid how to make GI Joe hang gliders. By YOUR OWN definition,
at least as stated thus far, you went above and beyond the call of duty.

This all sounds like blabber. Why not give an example and I'll tell
you how a sensible parent SHOULD behave?

Suppose a four-year-old needs to go to daycare so his parents can go
to work, but the child refuses to go?
-----------------------------
Then you find other work or get a co-parent to stay home like you're
supposed to till they LIKE the idea. They will usually like the idea
next week, so if you wait, you'll find they become ready on their own.

That's not what I call being pragmatic. Nor is piling that burden on top of
the requirement for the parents to provide food, clothing, and shelter for
the child anything resembling my concept of fair. But of course your
concept of fairness is so focused on the children that it completely ignores
the parents. (Except, of course, when it's threatening to kill or torture
them.)

If the Geneva Convention allows a prison guard to punish a prisoner for
refusing to cooperate in a particular situation, or for refusing to stop
an
impermissible action,
--------------------
It does indeed.


I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a chance
to
reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.
-------------------------------
Threat or pain is illegal under Geneva.
Physical force without punishment to move a prisoner is acceptible.

In which case as long as the thing that's done after the guard counts to
three is a legitimate form of punishment under the convention, counting to
three would be allowed under the convention, right?

So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided.
---------------
Doesn't relate to children, they are owed support. They ONLY have an
obligation to learn the skill before they leave home, not to do your
work for you. Once they come to their near-adulthood, they can be
given responsibility equal to an adults ONLY IF they are given the
absolute freedom of an adult, and ONLY then. At this age they move
elsewhere in other cultures, about age 12 or 13.

What freedom does your model give an adult that it doesn't give a child?

A roommate that does not do his part to make the relationship work
can be thrown out, or can have his roommate leave him to pay the rent
and
bills himself.
-----------------
Except that you incurred the debt for their support by bringing them
into the world without their informed consent or express permission.

Aww, the poor little babies, forced to be born instead of being killed in
their mothers' wombs the way their parents would have done if the parents
were good, humane, decent people.

But your philosophy tells children that they should be able to expect
something in return for even those kinds of basics. That creates an
asymmetric relationship, not a symmetric one.
-----------------------------
No, beyond the debt their parents incurred to them for their support,
it is equal, you just don't like paying your debts I believe!! You
seem to believe that when you owe someone else money, that you somehow
get to order them around in return for that inconvenience!!!!

I don't believe that saving a person's life without his "informed consent or
express permission" causes me to owe him a debt, and neither do I believe
that giving a child life creates a unilateral debt in which the parents owe
the child something but the child owes nothing to the parents.

I'm snipping a fair number of redundant rants that don't add anything new to
the discussion.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Regarding the (admittedly off-topic) issue of schools, a system in which all
parents pay taxes and all children's education is funded without regard to
what schools their parents choose (at least as long as the schools' quality
is acceptable) is fair and symmetric. It provides a level playing field in
which government gives no group an artificial advantage over any other, and
thus allows different types of schools to compete against each other on
almost exactly the same basis that they would if government were not
involved at all.

But if government arbitrarily refuses to fund children's education if the
children attend a school the government finds unacceptable based on
religious or political reasons, the situation becomes asymmetrical and the
playing field tilts to very heavily favor groups who get their children's
education funded at taxpayer expense over those that are forced to pay taxes
but do not get their children's education funded. Depending on what issues
are involved in a particular situation, that undermines freedom of religion,
speech, and/or the press.

As for Steve's words, "publically decided Truth," the concept that
government can decide Truth is exactly what freedom of religion, speech, the
press, and assembly were written into our Constitution to oppose. The idea
of allowing the majority to take everyone's money and use it to push the
majority's concept of "Truth" onto as many children as possible ought to be
considered anathema to freedom. Worse, Steve is trying to claim the mantle
of majority approval for what is in reality a parody of the Truth as the
majority sees it, a parody with God reduced to irrelevancy.

I might also remind Steve that it is flagrantly unconstitutional under the
First Amendment for government to decide what is Truth and what is not in
regard to religious matters. His desire to suppress Christianity as "lies"
so far as children's education is concerned would thus be a gross violation
of the Constitution.

What does people's using something together in good faith have to do
with its accuracy? Groups working together are quite capable of being
wrong.
-----------------
Groups are only wrong when they set out to be, and to call it right.

And YOU dare to accuse ME of blind faith? That claim is not only blind, but
has its head stuck in the sand halfway down to China.

When the recognized peer-reviewers of science look at something,
they use the principles of science, which prevent such bias.

Hogwash. Scientists are human beings, and therefore vulnerable to human
biases. The use of multiple peer reviewers reduces the risk of such biases,
but cannot eliminte it - especially when the peer reviewers themselves often
have biases in common.

I would also point out that peer review processes are inherently
incestuous in nature. The peers doing the reviewing are in the
same field as those who are doing the original research and writing.
Therefore, reviewers have a strong incentive to avoid applying stricter
standards of review to the research of others than they want to see
applied to their own research.
---------------
Cute, but no cigar. Every other source of peer review is MORE biased.

Which means that any peer review system will inevitably be biased. Deal
with it.

If a Christian went to a professional psychologist, and the
psychologist tried to tell him that he was delusional because God does
not exist and his parents lied to him when they told him that God does
exist, would that not be a violation of professional standards?
-------------------
Some Xtian might well think he had indeed been told that, when what
the professional told him is that he may have conflicts regarding the
acceptance of such harsh and inherently contradictory standards that
his parents imparted to him in the form of religion.

But that was not what you did when you posted your psycho-babble that I
characterized as malpractice. You flat-out called my religion a lie.

Brainwashed. Stockholm Syndrome.

Do you have any idea how unscientific you are being here? What you've
done is find a way to pretend that any evidence that conflicts with your
view cannot possibly be valid. That makes it impossible for you to
consider the issue from anything even halfway resembling a genuinely
scientific perspective.

I've considered the Stockholm Syndrome possibility, but it simply does
not fit. I have no more of a personal stake in believing that my
parents
made good choices than you do in believing that your parents made good
choices.
--------------------
Nonsense, your very self-esteem relies on believing that what your
parents did was correct, or else you'd have to accept that you were
not as loved, and consequently, that your parents did not find you
lovable.

LOL. You keep reaching new heights in absurdity. Parents are fallible
human beings, and are quite capable of loving their children yet making
mistakes with them. I have ample reason to believe that my parents loved me
whether or not I view their parenting choices as correct.

And in what way do I have a bigger "self-esteem" stake in whether my parents
made the correct choices than you do in whether yours made the correct
choices? Why could your parents make mistakes yet still love you, but it be
impossible for my parents to make mistakes and still love me?

So I see no basis for believing that I am
suffering from anything resembling Stockholm Syndrome.
---------------------------
If you experienced force or coercion, the enforcement of illicit
rules, then you are merely in denial.

No, you are the one who is in denial. Denial that your theoretical model of
how children are "supposed" to react to the use of parental authority does n
ot stand up to the ultimte test: the experiences of real people in the real
world. In legitimate science, the validity of hypotheses is tested based on
whether or not they stand up in the real world. You are trying to
circumvent that by arbitrarily assuming that any real-world report that
contradicts your hypothesis must be in error.

You have provided no evidence to support that view beyond your
own assumptions and prejudices.
-----------------------------
The logic is unassailable, if a child has human rights, and indeed they
feel they do just as adults do, which is the only relevant criteria,
then they can feel abused and feel hatred and resentment and desire
revenge. If they do that, then the formation of all other similar
psychological phenomena associated with abuse are INDEED extent.
It matters not if they are beaten, or only threatened and bullied.

As I said before, if people hold different axioms, they can prove different
and contradictory things through supposedly "unassailable" logic. Your
entire house of cards rests on your belief that parents owe their children a
debt, but children do not owe their parents a debt in return. If one
believes instead that a certain amount of obedience to parental authority is
at least part of what children owe their parents in exchange for the food,
clothing, shelter, time, and attention the parents provide for them, your
house of cards collapses.

Or they can attempt foolishly and destructively to try to live a life
that is NOT THEIRS TO LIVE!

You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between
parents' not enforcing any limits except where criminal matters are
concerned and parents' trying to live their children's entire lives for
them.
-----------------------
There is no such thing as a "middle ground", it is like saying: "Gee,
you mean parents cannot be insulting and offensive AT ALL, GEEE!"

If you cna be insulting and offensive to me when you believe I'm wrong, why
can't parents be offensive and insulting to their children when they believe
their children are wrong? After all, if, as you allege, children have the
same human rights that I do, it logically follows that I have the same human
rights that they do. So either we both have the right not to be treated in
an offensive and insulting manner, or neither does.

Or are you going to make up yet another special rule that requires parents
to treat their children as more than just equal? It's interesting how you
go around doing that every time you need to in order to make your concept of
how parents ought to treat their children work.

The one area where children clearly do know more than their parents (and
in
which children know beyond a doubt that they know more) is the
children's
own interests and desires.
--------------
But this extends to each and every choice and preference the child
makes.

It extends to the benefit side of every choice and preference the child
makes, but sometimes extends only to part of the cost/risk side. Some costs
and risks involve almost purely subjective value, for example, "If I play
Nintendo, I can't play chess at the same time." But others have costs or
risks that are far more objective in nature, for example, if a child doesn't
do enough homework to keep up, he'll have to be held back a year in school
(at least in most places), or if a child jumps from a high place, he might
break a leg. The parents are generally in a better position than the child
to weigh the objective implications of such cost/risk elements. (And I
might add that in both of these examples, the child's choice could have a
significant impact on the parents' wallet. With school, the parents could
have to support the child through an extra year of school. With jumping,
the parents could have to pay medical bills for a broken leg. That gives
the parents even more of a stake in those particular issues.)

But making and enforcing a few rules about what a child has to do or
cannot
do in situations where more than just the child's current desires is at
stake is not the same thing as trying to take over a child's entire
life.
---------------
ANY illicit rule DOES EXACTLY THAT! Just as one case of abuse by police
does so.

Even accepting your premise regarding abuse, one case of abuse by police is
not the same as police abusing a person constantly for a month. But I do
not agree with your definition of "illicit" in the first place.

You [] make it sound as if
any interference in the child's life were an attempt to take over the
child's entire life.
---------------------
See above, example of police abuse of power. It is indeed!
There is no excuse for the LEAST abuse of power.

The fact that there is "no excuse for the least abuse of power" does not
mean that a small abuse is the same as a large one. If a police officer
hits someone with a club once at the beginning of an interrogation and once
at the end, it is a lie to claim that the police officer beat the person
continually throughout the entire interrogation. Similarly, if parents try
to take over a few decisions in a child's life, it is deceptive to portray
the matter as if the parents were trying to live the child's entire life for
him.

Garbage, you're blathering around to try to sound reasonable, but
everything you're saying could be used to defend ANY petty venal
tyranny!! it is NOT compelling!

Oh? Try using my argument to defend a mother who stays home full time,
yet
expects her children to do all of the work around the house.
------------------------------
Her status is irrelevant to any abuse.

So? You made the claim, "everything you're saying could be used to defend
ANY petty venal tyranny!!" If so, you should be able to find a way to use
what I was saying to defend the mother I described. I don't think you can;
at least not without stretching credibility to the breaking point.

Actually, though, there is a very good reason why I view the mother's status
as relevant. If a single mother is working sixty hours a week to support
her kids, she is working more than the kids are (counting school as part of
the children's work) even if she makes the children do all of the household
chores. Under those conditions, requiring the children to do all of the
housework in exchange for the benefit they receive from their mother's
working such long hours can be defended as fair under "everything I'm
saying." (Indeed, a variant would presumably even be legitimate under your
model: what if the children agree to accept responsibility for the household
chores so the mother can work longer hours in part to buy more and nicer
things for the kids?)

In contrast, a mother who stays home all day doing nothing productive faces
a much lower work burden than what school places on her children. Given
that reality, how would one defend a claim that expecting the children to do
all the housework while their mother sits back and does nothing would
constitute nothing more than requiring the children to do their fair share?
Under "everything I'm saying," if defending the fairness of the mother's
expectations would be possible at all under those conditions, it would
require a truly enormous stretch.

You're oversimplifying slightly. There are actually three basic
possibilities, with all sorts of shades in between. The person whose
keys were taken might, looking back, agree that taking his keys was
the right thing to do.
------------
He well might, but I am not discussing that situation. You're
pretending that situation is all situations, when it isn't.

False accusation. The reason I explicitly called out all three basic
possibilities is that all three are, in fact, possible.

He might not actally agree that it was the right thing to do,
but still recognize that the other person meant well and not hold it
against
him.
---------------
He might forgive an abuse if they apologized, but be annoyed.

If lasting annoyance toward the parents is involved, that's starting to
drift down into the least serious portion of the third case.

Or he might be offended, which would harm or possibly destroy the
relationship.
----------------
Which is the case with force and coercion.

Sometimes. Not always.

Those same basic possibilities also exist with the use of parental
authority to control certain aspects of children's lives.
-------------------
No such illicit violations of the child's rights accomplish good
results.

So you keep claiming. The problem is, to do so, you have to call me and
millions of other people liars or deluded. That isn't exactly scientific.
In fact, you're almost like a Pythagorean who would rather kill a person who
showed you an irrational number than believe that such a thing could
actually exist. (I heard a presentation in college speculating that the
Pythagoreans did in fact kill a person for making such a discovery.)

But you refuse to
acknowledge that the result could be anything other than the third
possibility, except maybe as a result of Stockholm Syndrome.
-----------------------------------
The example of police abuse of power is appropriate here.
Where force is used, force was needed, and revenge entails neceesarily.

Q.E.D. As I said, you refuse to acknowledge that the result could be
anything other than the third possibility, except maybe as a result of
Stockholm Syndrome.

No, we''re not having a bit of it. This high-handedness has mostly
caused children to move as far as they can get from their parents
and to never speak to them or let them anywhere NEAR their own
grandchildren! This has become such an issue that the Supreme Court
of the US has said that grandparents have NO right to see their
grandchildren as minors.

I think you're grossly exaggerating. Yes, there are children who react
as you describe,
----------------
As many as half my acquaintances have done so to one degree or another,
spending a large fraction of their lives avoiding contact with their
parents.

"As many as half" is less than "mostly." And from what you've written, it
sounds like your friends' parents weren't exactly the most enlightened or
reasonable among parents who sometimes use coercive means. I'm curious: was
there a strong correlation between which parents you thought were the worst
and which children have largely avoided contact with their parents?

To make that claim stick, you would have to define "Stockholm Syndrome"
so loosely as to make the term almost meaningless. Employees who
empathize with bosses who exercise more authority than would be ideal
would be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, for example.
------------------------------
No. SS is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance, an abused person
denies their abuse at the hands of another by siding with them to save
face.

From my interpretation based on reading a few articles on Google, fear, not
desire to save face, is the primary factor.

From doing some poking around on the web, a major element of
Stockholm Syndrome is that the victims feel like their lives (or at
least their safety) hinges on their identifying with their captors.
---------------
No, this is no "tactic" for survival, instead it is an emotional tactic
to preserve their self-esteem by denying they are being abused.
Otherwise they have to accept being humiliated by force and coercion.

This is rich. First you claim I'm suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, and
now you're trying to redefine the syndrome to fit your purposes. Or at
least that's how it looks to me. If you have a few URL's that support your
interpretation, I'll check them out.

If children are
afraid that they will be punished if they do not act like they approve
-----------------------
Even merely denial of love is sufficient in the parental case.
It amounts to intimidation of a child raised to be emotionally weak.

House of cards, with one fabrication built on top of another.

I think you're also confusing Stockholm Syndrome with normal human
empathy.
----------
No.

Human beings do not have to be held captive by a person or threatened by
the
person to empathize with that person.
------------
There is cause to identify with another's struggle in their own life.
There is absolutely NO reason to identify with their struggle to
interefere with YOUR life. At most children of such parents pity them
for being such an asshole.

You're trying to pretend that the two have nothing to do with each other.
In reality, the choices parents make regarding how to rear their children
are one of the most difficult, important, and sometimes painful aspects of
the parents' struggle in their own lives.

of them, we feel like they did a generally good job of looking after
our interests.
-----------------------------
And those for which this isn't true aren't alive, but that doesn't
speak at all to the crimes done to the damaged people who are now
wandering around hurt and confused and the criminals harming
others that these parents produced.

Huh??? Where does the "aren't alive" bit come from?
----------------
The child's interest is primarily survival, so there is an "anthropic
principle" element to this. You have to say, "well they kept me alive,
they must have domne something right, so do I owe them?", and you have
to deal with that in rejecting their abuse. It is a hurdle, but one
that causes EVEN MORE resentment at being played that way.

Yet again you make up thoughts and pretend that they are mine. My concept
of "a generally good job of looking after our interests" involves a lot more
than just reaching adulthood alive.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

There's nothing wrong with threatening dire consequences for CRIME,
or doing damage to enemies of the People you have NO reason to care
about. We care about our children, however, and we want to preevent
them from committing crimes that will see them become enemies of the
People and having their human value ignored thereafter.

You haven't ever read David Weber's Honor Harrington science fiction books
by any chance, have you? Your use of the words, "Enemies of the People"
bring to mind the bad guys in those books, the People's Republic of Haven.
Their State Security during the time the Committee for Public Safety was in
charge was always on the lookout for "enemies of the People."

The comparison is certainly not flattering. The only problem is, I'm having
a hard time deciding which it's more "not flattering" to, you or the Peep
leedership.

The funny thing about the words, "enemies of the People," is that they seem
to almost invariably really refer to enemies of whatever totalitarian regime
happens to be in charge pretending to represent "the People." Which is
fitting, given your pretensions to a kind of omniscience that would make you
a suitable candidate for dictator.

But you missed my point. For non-coercive parenting techniques to be
expected to match your results when used by others, it is not sufficient
that parents stop coercing their children. They would also have to
match
your positive efforts.
--------------------------
Do no harm, even if you can do better as well. Nothing positive will
ever mitigate concurrent abuse.

Spoken on high from Mount Olympus yet again.

Then you find other work or get a co-parent to stay home like you're
supposed to till they LIKE the idea. They will usually like the idea
next week, so if you wait, you'll find they become ready on their own.

That's not what I call being pragmatic.
--------------
When the ultimate pragmatism is with respect to the child it is.

Proof by definition rears its ugly head again. "Be pragmatic." "What's
pragmatic?" "Doing things the way I say."

I don't see how it could possibly violate the
Convention for a guard to count to three to give the prisoner a
chance
to reconsider instead of punishing the prisoner immediately.
-------------------------------
Threat or pain is illegal under Geneva.
Physical force without punishment to move a prisoner is acceptible.

In which case as long as the thing that's done after the guard counts to
three is a legitimate form of punishment under the convention, counting
to
three would be allowed under the convention, right?
----------------------------
No. That constitutes threat of harm.

I checked the wording of the Convention on the Internet: "No physical or
mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on
prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.
Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or
exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

So while threatening to punish a prisoner for refusing to divulge
information is prohibited, threatening to punish a prisoner for violating a
legitimate rule is not prohibited.

So is doing one's share of the chores, in whatever manner they are
divided.
---------------
Doesn't relate to children, they are owed support. They ONLY have an
obligation to learn the skill before they leave home, not to do your
work for you. Once they come to their near-adulthood, they can be
given responsibility equal to an adults ONLY IF they are given the
absolute freedom of an adult, and ONLY then. At this age they move
elsewhere in other cultures, about age 12 or 13.

What freedom does your model give an adult that it doesn't give a child?
----------------------------
A very young child can be moved by the parent to protect them, or
because the child must accompany the parents where they must go.
This changes as the child develops their own clear desires for where
they wish to be. However, they deserve an apology for any move they
don't like even when very young. The parent always has the right to
rescue them, and anyone has the right to rescue anyone anyway, but
heaven help you if you start pretending someone needs rescue if you
just don't like their life choices.

So a child of 12 or 13 would in fact have the same freedom as an adult.
Right?

I don't believe that saving a person's life without his "informed
consent or
express permission" causes me to owe him a debt, and neither do I
believe
that giving a child life creates a unilateral debt in which the parents
owe
the child something but the child owes nothing to the parents.
----------------------------------
Tough ****. The State does, even now.
You would seem to be antisocial.

Under current law, the debt is not entirely unilateral, at least where
custodial parents are concerned. For example, children can be required to
do reasonable chores around the house, and can be required to stop doing
things that their parents find annoying such as making a lot of noise when a
parent isn't in a mood to listen.

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

If I
understand the positions you've been taking correctly, an agreement for
a
parent to offer to buy a child a video game in exchange for the child's
mowing the lawn each of the next two weekends would be considered
legitimate.
---------------------------------
Yes, if that were all there was to it, but so often the parent makes
it more complex.

Which raises the question of how breaches of contract on the part of the
child would be dealt with if they occur.

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking R. Steve Walz wrote:

: You need to be professionally tortured till you shut your ****ing
: vicious little ********.

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

LOL!

Doan
----------
You incompetent spoofing moron, you left your addy in the post you
falsely attributed to Chris!!
Steve

LOL! You lying, stupid, pity excuse of a **** spewing mouth full of
obxious verbal garbage, ask Chris and he will tell you that is an
exact quote!

Doan
------------
There were no "quotes"!! You ****ed up, you old liar!
Steve

Run out of "****"? Shall I put more in my MOUHT? :-)
Doan
---------
Sure, go for it. Eat **** and die.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Not when you kill enough of them.

Even the Nazi can't kill that many! ;-)
---------------------------
You're human ****, unfit to respond on this thread.
Steve