Kids should work...

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:14:09 -0600, toto
wrote:

On 3 Dec 2003 07:37:43 -0800, (Kane)
wrote:

And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
upset that your valuable thing is broken.

Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough
it
can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do not
understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright in a
child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect the
child until she is old enough developmentally (has the capacity) to
process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can be
taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are
teaching.

I don't think it is frightening to a child to learn that his parents
have feelings, Kane.

Neither do I. I also don't hand them an overheated cup of cocoa and
expect them to know how to tell if it's too hot, as we adults and
older children learn to do....let your lips feel the radiation and
decide.

I said, "and you overload them."

And it IS frightening if the parent does not mediate their feelings
for the level of the child's perception.

You have posted such wonderful ways to parent with out using pain.
Blaring emotions can be painful. Even overdoing joy, can at times be
overload for the child. I'm merely suggesting, as you have about other
issues in parenting, thoughful management.

After all, isn't that the object...to show a child how to self manage,
and weren't the psych 101 texts correct in their claim that 80% of all
learning is by example?

As long as the parent is not trying to make
the child feel guilty or ashamed,

"shame" is a normal human response. It is modesty based, which came to
us out of our need to have a survival trait connected to our
helplessness during some squating elimination, and sexual coupling.

But you are correct, and that is why I'm suggesting moderation in
expressing feelings based on the child's capacity to manage their
reactions.

We are supposed to react to each other...it's in our genetic pack
animal makeup. We have to. So kids can't moderate their reactions at
first.

the child should know that the
parent has feelings

Yes. I agree with the prior caveats.

I also think that we need to think about what we want them to learn
about handling our feelings. We often overwhelm our children with our
emotional expressions and they either become anxious about us, or
themselves. A common reaction to emotional overload is to shut down.

I want my child to stay connected so I'm going to do what I often do
with adults (instead of indulging myself at my child's developmental
expense) I'm going to start by talking about my feelings and
reactions.

My friends can handle it if I lose it, but still I take the time to
build a proper social framework for the emotion I wish to express.
That may have to be very limited with the child. Both in intensity and
duration.

that can be hurt and that there are some things
the parent values that need to be respected.

Toto, the impact I get from that statement isn't a pleasant one. I
feel like you think you have license to emotionally batter (what I
mean by overload) because it's a child and they can't protect
themselves. You would check it out before you did the same to an
adult. Or if you haven't learned that you must have trouble keeping
friends smile and I don't believe that.

There is a tendancy in us, I guess some ancient history we pass on
intergenerationally, to both over estimate the child's capacity and
under estimate it.

The drive and capacity to explore often gets underestimated and the
child is seen as "misbehaving." Do you have any compulsions you kind
of have to manage? Mine is chocolate. I have to stay away and treat it
like an addiction. Silly huh?

Well a child is driven compulsively to expore at about 5 times that
intensity. It can't be stopped, only subverted.

That's the underestimation example.

Here the over:

We think our kids can stand more stimuli than they can. We forget
ourselves how horribly coarse and painful that washcloth was on our
tender little faces at four or five. We take children to noise,
smokey, brightly lite places and being involved don't notice the
building tension in them, until it explodes with runing and yelling
and ... lots of lung expulsion, lots of blocking out the noise with
their own, lots of waving of arms and hands against the invading
light.

And so we spank them for misbehavior, or we say they are just tired,
adn insist they sleep...and sometimes they do drop with the
exhaustion, but more often they lay there in a twitching mess of
jangled nerves, and we get them evaluated as ADHD or some other thing
from the laundry list.

We forget that only a couple of generations ago there were much longer
periods of quiet in the child's life. Less or no TV, more room, more
parks and forests closer by.

And back then when parents blew out in the presence of or at children
there was always grandmas house down the block aways. Quite, peaceful,
no loud music, soft touches, cuddles, and naps in the quiet.

Where does grandma live today?

YOU have to be their refuge, even from yourself when need be.

Of hire a nanny I guess. grin

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 20:29:19 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
On 3 Dec 2003 16:41:38 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:

Okay, so to you it is a matter of definition, a person who wants
as
much as he can get away with is dysfunctional.

No no..you misunderstand. To want the entire universe is healthy,
normal, and good in the child of a certain age.

why is it not normal for any adult?

It is good and normal, as it is good and normal to curtail the urge
to
the legal and morally defensible.

The child learns this one way or another. Pain parenting disrupts
the
learning of adult responsibility and results in little problems
such
as Enron and degradation of the environment.

it is not obvious to me that Enron was a resul tof pain parenting.

Really?

Enron was a result of reckless investing where investors wanted to be
lied to rather than informed. Someone was found who was willing to
lie.

Let me see now. I've contended that children raised respectfully
without pain parenting have a better quality of conscience based on an
inner sense of worth by deed...honesty.

Would it not then follow that the Enron example is a good one for my
claim to this development of conscience?

I'm not telling anyone to just believe it, only to consider the
elements.

really understand what is going on, but nature demands she learn
it...hence we get the "terrible twos." All the difficulties for
the
parent are nothing compared to the difficulties for the child.

I frankly do not see much difficulties so far.

If you aren't a punishing controller then I wouldn't expect you to.
You either know or have life experience from your own childhood
that
doesn't set off any alarm bells to "correct" on the scale many
parents do.

Exactly.

When I say that punishment may be necessary etc, bear in mind that I
punish my son only very inrequently and mildly (as in taking the
offending thing away).

You've made that clear.

not playing with the child.

A child's play is a child's work, her educational work. Not helping
her is tantamount to someone disrupting your work and education.

so let it be disrupted for 10 minutes. big deal.

Actually it is. The more study of the child's brain and development,
the more they recognise the critical nature of certain tasks, event
explored if you will, within a certain window of time.

Two women studied this some years back and wrote a book on it but I
cannot recall the name. I'll see if I can google something up. In any
case there was something on the order of a foundation for a math sense
or such (that's not it, just a metaphor) and very important for humans
to possess, and it had a total of a two week window, or would not be
learned, and seemed not to be one of those things another part of the
brain could take over.

I think we often miss how terribly intense a child is and deeply
absorbed in their study - their work. We see their happy smile and
think that reflects their inner mental state, when it might just
reflect gas, or that the pile of **** their are sitting in hasn't
gotten uncomfortable yet.

They are on alert and focused on THIER jobs, not our guesses. Ten
minutes could be a very big deal indeed.

When you are learning something very very new to you and concentrating
while trying to hold a number of things in your mind at once or in
rapid sequence, and also keep the outside world at bay, how do you
respond if someone interupts?

Hey, just writing these silly post I get focused and if my wife
interupts I have to notice my annoyance and switch it off. But I
hardly can expect a baby to have learned that for a few years....NOR
do I want them too.

We have incipient geniuses to raise, and we manage to screw that up
quite a bit.

Ever read JC Pearce's bood, Magical Child? He is one windy soul, worse
than me and esoteric, but there is a piece in the first part of the
book where his four year old son learns classical piano...remarkable
well. It's a seminal read for parents of small children. Shouldn't be
missed, and it ALL about what happens when a child's learning is
interrupted.

I won't spoil the punchline.

if he destroys something that he was told not to destroy,

He may not have understood. HIS imperative is to explore. Yours,
quite frankly as far as nature is concerned, is seconday or less. A
great deal of the potential of human beings is lost by subversion
enforcing our wishes on children.

Those who do more sitting back and watching and managing the
enviroment for maximum interaction with minimum safety risks see
little miracles. Have you read Magical Child, Joseph Chilton
Pearce?

no I have not, what is it about?

As I said above. And it's generally about child development. How we do
it and other cultures do it, and how it is so often not what we
project from our own beliefs upon the child.

I have watched children intently for years. The most common projection
of parents is the one where they say, "he's doing it to annoy me."

Bull. That is a sophisticated adult behavior. Kids in their teens are
just learning it as a talent. Younger kids are expressing their need,
and often it is to get just a bit of attention. Then the parent goes
all, "he's just doing that to get my attention, I'll show him
attention all right."

My response is "yes, so? would you smack your wife or husband because
they wanted your attention but couldn't figure out why themselves?

Well I estimate that as much as 80% of a child's attention getting
behavior is a plea to help them sort out those strange longings and
feelings they haven't sorted out with enough practicie yet.

Hell, half the time kids can't tell when they are hungry, they just
whine, tipping off the alert mommy that someone needs some juice and
cookies.

Why is it we can get it on the food, or overload, signals but not on
the simple "tell me what I want or need" signals?

A question or two usually is all it takes. Like in "Oh honey you are
just bored, go pull out the game box or just explore the playroom, or
etc..."

not to fetch
him a second item.

Or to get items less destructable or that can be cheaply
sacrificed.
You don't want him to do his juggling practice with your little
glass
unicorn collection...should you belt him, or give him some bean
bags?

what if he wants to do jumping with unicorns and not with available
bean bags.

Juggling.

Get him his own glass unicorn and let him try it. Hell, he may be up
to running chainsaws before you know it...or he will see what happens
when they fall. How hard is it to divert a child from one thing to
another? Different tactics at different ages, but still the basic tool
of diversion.

And why is it that before you've tried it you "yes but" me?

We could do this for years. Is that your intent?

Whining kids whose parents simple cut them off teach some very
interesting escalations, including stealing what they want, or
finding
others more easily whined at (I've known a few women that went from
man to man with that strategy). In our circle they are a verb. "Oh,
please don't try to Jane me."

No, I fixed him by asking if he'd like to learn how to ask so
people
will listen and comply more. He said yes.

I said, lowering my voice deeply, "ASK LIKE THIS."

He had been wanting an icecream.

What came out of him was a bass foghorn sounding, "DAAAADDDDYYYY,
CAAAAAN IIIII HAAAAVE AAAAN IIIIIICECREEEEEAM?" People nearby
listen
were nearly ROTLFTAO.

But it worked. And he and I improved our relationship.

I do that all the time also.

Okay.


thanks, I bought it... $1.73.

I'm unaware that it's out anywhere at that price. Where did you
find
it? Last I heard it was in hard back only and ran about $20.

used at amazon.

Hmmm. I'll send people there.

Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training, or PET.

I read that one...

Did you understand it, and did you find anyone to practice the
skills
with...not a child, an adult partner?

I practice it on my son and sometimes wife. It is kind of
interesting.

You must have had exposure to empathy from your own family. A great
many people in this empathy deficient society are stunned at the
discovery of active listening...or you are a master at understatement.

Do you let them practice with YOU as the subject? If you don't they
may weary of being "practiced upon" pretty soon.

Not if you respond to his spilling activity with more acceptable
spilling activity for learning. If you take it away and ignore the
need to experiment with the physical environment you are not
getting a
better relationship and you are in fact risking it.

sure.

Ever wonder why so many blame their parents for their own failings.
Could be they are on to something, but I notice that if the person
came from a punishment household they still do the same things to
their kids.

what is learned in childhood is extremely powerful.
try carrying around a 50 lbs sack of sand for one day, all day, and
come back and tell me if that was not punishment.

If that sack was empty when I began and it took five years to get
to
50lbs in roughly equal installments, I am merely strong now. I'm
not
very discomfited by it at all.

If what you say is true when we hit fifty pounds as a child we
should
be in great discomfort.

I am about 30lbs over what I would prefer right now. Still others
might envy me as I carry it on a 6.2 frame with considerable muscle
mass under it. I hardly notice it. Pants tightness is probably the
only discomfort.

The same would be true in other cultures where 50lbs more weight
than
I would like is common and admired.

even in such cultures you would feel better without extra fat... fat
does not know kn which culture it is. it just hangs on you!

You may not understand the power of culture. Culture is a set of
beliefs, not a bunch of behaviors. The behaviors are just the external
manifestation...and the reason we say culture, is that is agreed upon
beliefs, a group construct.

It is so powerful that people will give up their lives for it if that
is the belief...that one can and must do that under particular
circumstance.

It changes how our brains process information. How many kinds of snow
can you name? Eskimos can name up to 52 distinct to them kinds, their
schema if you will.

I've heard that their is a New Guinea tribe, very isolated and that is
a dark and dreary place in some mountain valleys, that do not see red.

There is nothign wrong with their eyes. If pressed to tell the color
when you old up a red object they have they have other names to call
it but the actually do no see red. Their brain turns it to some color
they are familiar with, but no shade of read.

No word for red, either as you can imagine.

In the negative sense of "fat" some cultures don't have such a word.
They do have some that are synonymous with beautiful that refer to
more corpulance.

To say someone was "fat in old chinese culture was to say they were
fortunate and wealthy...and it referred to body size.

I'm not arguing the comfort question...but there are those that would.
Sumo's in training feel very very good emotionally and physically at a
gain in weight.

It's all in the perception.

Example: you cheat on your spouse, and ruin your
marriage. It's a punishment.

Clue, some people, so pain based in their upbringing, seek things
for
gratification and are willing to take the risk no matter how much
pain
to themselves and others might ensue.

and they get punished

Really?

I notice you forgot to put in that they got caught. There is a part
of
you that knows the truth, even with you execute your sophistry.

so, they get caught and punished.

They do not experience punishment as you and I might, I hope you
anyway, and it's just an inconvenience and in fact they could be very
addicted to the downside of life to better savor the up.

It's not aversive. It attracts them. Masochism. There is a lot of it
around, and minimized.

I do not remember specific studies
etc, nor do I have any desire to spend time finding it out, but I
remember that I have seen several of them when I was studying
economics.

The researchers would very likely have a thorough mix, given the 90
vs
10 percent ration, out of any demographic they drew their sample
from.
Highly unlikely they were looking at ANY adults that experienced
non
pain parenting.

correct.

i

Your responses are passive.

Kane

On 4 Dec 2003 14:13:55 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulent 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.

Ah yes, another "reasonable standards" spanker,
towelboyshowergirlpunishforwettingthemselves expert.

Don't you find it the least odd that Doan demands scientific proof for
everything, down to splitting of hairs into the millionths, but he
comes up with the fuzzy logic response to a simple question such as
mine.

We have an object, the child, we have the objective of teaching them
something, and hopefully without psychological or physical damage. We
have a hand or other striking object that can be measure and the force
that can be applied with testing equipment...not even any expensive
lab equipment would have to be constructed.

We can of course, according to the medical researcher Doan cited that
peer reviewed Strauss, use as methodology the same potentionally
destructive experimental model medine does in its research, on human
children, that is if we are to get a valid statistical model out of it
all.

I mean this is all sooooo simple to work out, and faaaar beyond we
stupid illogical ASZs. But Doan can do it. Ask him. He says he knows.

Instead of us ASZs solving this question we just stick our heads in
the sand and don't spank. What cowards; and stupid and illogical too.

How's tricks, Whore?

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On 4 Dec 2003 14:13:55 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulent 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.

Ah yes, another "reasonable standards" spanker,
towelboyshowergirlpunishforwettingthemselves expert.

Don't you find it the least odd that Doan demands scientific proof for
everything, down to splitting of hairs into the millionths, but he
comes up with the fuzzy logic response to a simple question such as
mine.

We have an object, the child, we have the objective of teaching them
something, and hopefully without psychological or physical damage. We
have a hand or other striking object that can be measure and the force
that can be applied with testing equipment...not even any expensive
lab equipment would have to be constructed.

We can of course, according to the medical researcher Doan cited that
peer reviewed Strauss, use as methodology the same potentionally
destructive experimental model medine does in its research, on human
children, that is if we are to get a valid statistical model out of it
all.

I mean this is all sooooo simple to work out, and faaaar beyond we
stupid illogical ASZs. But Doan can do it. Ask him. He says he knows.

Instead of us ASZs solving this question we just stick our heads in
the sand and don't spank. What cowards; and stupid and illogical too.

How's tricks, Whore?

Kane

When the panty regards "the child" as an "object", that about says it all.
Her grandparents don't consider her such at all. She is a wonderful
individual, deserving of respect and nurturance. NOT from an unrelated
third party who moved into her trailer and displaced her after abusing her.
May she have a wondrous holiday season among those who know who (as opposed
to what) she is.

Sherman

Doan said:

On the contrary, it is Alborn
who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
afraid of me? ;-)

Well, I'm sure most on the non-spank side just shake in their boots with fear over the
thought of dealing with you and your sterling logic, Doan. :-)

Got news for you. I'm still away (from wasting my time with you). If you want to think
it's fear, you're certainly welcome to think that. That idea fits right in with everything
else you maintain in that storehouse of confusion and misperceptions of yours.

W

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote:

Doan said:

On the contrary, it is Alborn
who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
afraid of me? ;-)

Well, I'm sure most on the non-spank side just shake in their boots with fear over the
thought of dealing with you and your sterling logic, Doan. :-)

And I could care less! ;-)

Got news for you. I'm still away (from wasting my time with you). If you want to think
it's fear, you're certainly welcome to think that. That idea fits right in with everything
else you maintain in that storehouse of confusion and misperceptions of yours.

Fine! But DON'T LIE AND ACCUSE ME OF RUNNING AWAY FROM A DEBATE!!!

Doan

"Ignoramus29143" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus29143" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane
wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
feeling is supposed to be good for them?

How about if the victim doesn't show a lasting physical injury but the
frequency of the spankings is enough to cause emotional damage?

Doesn't emotional damage count for anything?

When I was growing up I knew a kid who was spanked to sleep almost every
night of his adolescence.

He wet his bed almost every night well into his teens.

No physical injuries.

But he treats his children no better than he was treated.

Is that lasting injury long enough for ya?

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
...

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus29143" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane
wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
feeling is supposed to be good for them?

How about if the victim doesn't show a lasting physical injury but the
frequency of the spankings is enough to cause emotional damage?

Doesn't emotional damage count for anything?

When I was growing up I knew a kid who was spanked to sleep almost every
night of his adolescence.

He wet his bed almost every night well into his teens.

No physical injuries.

But he treats his children no better than he was treated.

Is that lasting injury long enough for ya?

Yep. That's the longest lasting damage of all. It goes on for generations.

Most parents spank a child because of their own anger. It is rarely in
relationship to whatever transgression that the child has performed. Thanks
for pointing this out, Dan.

Sherman.

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
...

"ChrisScaife" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus29143" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane
wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

IMHO beating starts when the victim shows lasting injury:
bruises, broken bones, brain damage, death...

How about if the victim is too young to understand that the pain they're
feeling is supposed to be good for them?
...

Good point.... although I would tend to think of it as emotional or
psychological abuse then.

Just so there is no doubt: I do not support any form of CP.
I didn't need it to train my dog.
I don't need it for a child either!