Parent-Child Negotiations

Chris wrote:

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

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

This sort of language is completely uncalled for, Steve.
-------------------
Nonsense, he called for it quite aptly.


Are you *trying* to embarrass the rest of the antispank side with
your rude, obscene messages?
---------------------
If you're embarrassed, then you're overstepping your boundaries.


If not, then please leave the obscene flame posts to those who have
nothing else to offer. Antispankers have the momentum of history on our
side and virtually all of the available science on our side. We don't
need to fling abuse at those who disagree with us, because we have the
stronger position in this debate. Mudslinging is the last resort of those
who have run out of arguments. We haven't, so let's not.
Chris
-----------------------
Of course we do, we need to embarrass, insult, battle, injure, and
kill them. ANYTHING which diminishes them is justified. The danger
is mostly in FAILING to do ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE damage to them, and
to their self-assuredness, their sense of personal safety, their
sense of being accepted, and anyone else's sense of their **** being
acceptible.

You know I disagree with you, so **** off and quit pretending that
antispanking sentiment is a unified monolith, I see YOU as remiss in
your duty and, to a degree, traitorous to "the cause"!!
Steve

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."
---------------
It certainly does, it produces people who will brook NO abuse of ANY
kind without turning and KILLING the perp, which is a quite marked
enhancement of human conscience and freedom-seeking!!
Steve

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

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan
-----------------
You're the only one with mouth-****.
Steve

You didn't answer my question! You spewed more "****", instead! ;-)
Doan
-------------
I only pointed out the **** in your mouth.
Steve

I told you so! Steven is no smarter than Kane0. So how does it feel to
have "never-spanked" kids say "**** you, Chris"? ;-)

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

Chris wrote:

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

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

This sort of language is completely uncalled for, Steve.
-------------------
Nonsense, he called for it quite aptly.


Are you *trying* to embarrass the rest of the antispank side with
your rude, obscene messages?
---------------------
If you're embarrassed, then you're overstepping your boundaries.


If not, then please leave the obscene flame posts to those who have
nothing else to offer. Antispankers have the momentum of history on our
side and virtually all of the available science on our side. We don't
need to fling abuse at those who disagree with us, because we have the
stronger position in this debate. Mudslinging is the last resort of those
who have run out of arguments. We haven't, so let's not.
Chris
-----------------------
Of course we do, we need to embarrass, insult, battle, injure, and
kill them. ANYTHING which diminishes them is justified. The danger
is mostly in FAILING to do ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE damage to them, and
to their self-assuredness, their sense of personal safety, their
sense of being accepted, and anyone else's sense of their **** being
acceptible.

You know I disagree with you, so **** off and quit pretending that
antispanking sentiment is a unified monolith, I see YOU as remiss in
your duty and, to a degree, traitorous to "the cause"!!
Steve

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

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."
---------------
It certainly does, it produces people who will brook NO abuse of ANY
kind without turning and KILLING the perp, which is a quite marked
enhancement of human conscience and freedom-seeking!!
Steve

There you go, Steve. :-)

Doan

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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


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!!


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.


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.


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!!!!

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!


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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!!


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
----------------
No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere
we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea.

The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is
-------------
You. Go the **** away, or grow a brain and use it.
Steve

LOL! Speaking like a "never-spanked" kid with a "****" coming out of his
mouth. Tell me, do all "never-spanked" grow up to be like you?

Doan
-----------------
You're the only one with mouth-****.
Steve

You didn't answer my question! You spewed more "****", instead! ;-)
Doan
-------------
I only pointed out the **** in your mouth.
Steve

Oops! You are looking at my ass-hole again. :-) How did my **** get to
your mouth? STOP STICKING YOUR NOSE IN OTHER PEOPLE' ASSES! :-)

Doan

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!

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. :-)


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! ;-)


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. :-)


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! ;-)


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! ;-)



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? ;-)


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! ;-)


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! ;---)


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! :--)


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! ;-)


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