Punishments and "Consequences"

Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for example,
making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about what he did, or
making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch while other children
play safely - are or are not punishments. I just had an epiphany about
that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is exactly
the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who spank claim
that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting. But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting, many
object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to insist
that spanking is not hitting.

Similarly, many of Kane's "consequences" are technically forms of
punishment. But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from
other forms of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at
all.

Kane can offer logical arguments for why he regards his "consequences" as
superior to other forms of punishment. And much of the time - probably
most - I'm inclined to agree with him as long as parents are willing to put
in the extra time and effort. But I consider it just as disingenuous for
Kane to try to claim that all of his "consequences" are not punishments as
it is for supporters of spanking to try to claim that spanking is not a form
of hitting.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for example,
making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about what he did, or
making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch while other children
play safely - are or are not punishments. I just had an epiphany about
that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is exactly
the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who spank claim
that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting.

You noticed. Notice that you cannot spank without it.

But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting, many
object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to insist
that spanking is not hitting.

Nope. Nothing like it at all, for you see, unlike spanking, that you
cannot do without hitting, consequences can be done without punishment.

For instance, I used to consequence the heck out of my kids...WHEN THEY
DID WHAT I WAS TEACHING THEM TO DO.

In other words, more often than not, the consequences were very pleasant
indeed. In fact, most all the time that is what they were.

Similarly, many of Kane's "consequences" are technically forms of
punishment.

Ah, but you see that is NOTHING like the 'spanking is not hitting,' self
delusion of the spankers ALL spanking is hitting, but not all
consequences are punishment.

In fact, they tend, if not laid on thickly with a lot of hair eyeball
staring and nasty tone of voice, rather value neutral.

"You left your bike in the rain, and the bearings are all frozen with
rust, and you can't ride it now?" "Which of the chores from the 'paid
for' list would you like to start with to get enough money for repairs?"

Now I could deliver that with a lecture, and "How many times have I told
you," but I didn't, and my kids got right away who had the
responsibility for THEIR ACTIONS.

I neither rescued or lectured. As the kids got older if they needed to
"fix" some problem like that they didn't even bother with me. They
simply did what needed doing.

But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from
other forms of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at
all.

Where did I say they were not or could not be punishing consequences? My
very description and examples should have shown you that it's determined
by circumstance, not "the act" of consequencing.

I can have my child take a time in with me, or a time out by himself.
The former is my task to make a non punishing 'consequence' which I make
sure has some exploring of alternative behaviors and "how we get what we
want" out of life without being criminals.

Or, I can either send the child off, or I can sit him nearby and glare
at him for awhile, or lecture him disapprovingly.

It's all "consequences."

Kane can offer logical arguments for why he regards his "consequences" as
superior to other forms of punishment.

Sure can. Because I try not to make them punishing. It's actually quite
easy and becomes more so very quickly. My kids learned as toddlers that
dad had limits, and the consequences of going beyond them weren't
painful, just educational. So they didn't have to be afraid.

For instance, I have a noise and activity boundary. My kids learned what
it was by game playing with me. They taught it very quickly to play
dates visiting, and it was always fun. I got to supervise but not have
to be overwhelmed with activity and noise.

For instance, there is a ring around me about 20 in diameter. You, a
child, can run, jump, even yell if you are that far away. Any idea how
safe that made kids feel around me?

They didn't have to test to find out the "limits" of this 'daddy.' He
showed them and we, the child, got to play at testing it until we got it
down. All of 3 minutes work at the outside.

And I rarely had to do anything with new kids as the ones that new me
would do the teaching themselves.

And much of the time - probably
most - I'm inclined to agree with him as long as parents are willing to put
in the extra time and effort.

IT'S EASIER AND TAKES LESS TIME.

I rarely had to shush my kids in the car. I used the same method there
as with the noise and activity ring around me. I simply made it clear
what my limits were.

I would say, "that's a tone of voice that doesn't distract me." "The
amount you are moving about is okay with me."

Simple, quick. No pain.

If they passed the boundary I'd simply ask them if they could remember
how much sound and movement they had been doing when I told them it was
okay.

Children are FAR more sensitive to the reactions of adults IF the adults
don't set up control struggles with them. Like any human being they tend
to push back when pushed.

But I consider it just as disingenuous for
Kane to try to claim that all of his "consequences" are not punishments

Why? All of mine were non punishments. If I caught my child responding
as though they were being punished, I STOPPED apologized and we explored
a way for me NOT to make that mistake again, like, "How can I talk with
you about this so it's not hard for you and more fun for us both?"

as
it is for supporters of spanking to try to claim that spanking is not a form
of hitting.

Well, you got, as a spanking advocate, that part right as you should
have. Congrats.

But you sure don't understand consequences very well.

They can be punishment, or they can be pleasant, or they can be neutral.

The last two are all I ever did, unless I caught myself, and then I did
a "do over's" with the kids.

That includes mentally ill children, teens, I worked with as well.

I'm not perfect. I can lose it. But I sure don't have to make the child
suffer for my poor behavior. Nor do I have to miss snicker the
opportunity to demonstrate how to handle things themselves when they too
slip and have some poor behavior.

Or don't you get that little funny?

When I was in college, many centuries ago, the psych 101 text had a
passage about learning that said 80% of all learning is by modeling.

Shall we hit our children to show them how to handle someone else's
behavior we don't agree with, and call it assault if the other is over
17 and spanking if they are under 18?

By the way, not that it should matter to you, but it does to me, my
estimation of you and your honesty just shot up about 90 points.

You may be the first person to argue for spanking that admitted to the
'spanking is not hitting' argument's utter fallacy. Thanks.

Never the less I CAN consequence without it being punishment. Did it for
many years, privately and professionally.

And it's already how civil adults treat each other.

Kane

"0:-" wrote in message
news:0aednQZBP7qgNOHYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for
example, making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about
what he did, or making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch
while other children play safely - are or are not punishments. I just
had an epiphany about that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is
exactly the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who
spank claim that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting.

You noticed. Notice that you cannot spank without it.

But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting,
many object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to
insist that spanking is not hitting.

Nope. Nothing like it at all, for you see, unlike spanking, that you
cannot do without hitting, consequences can be done without punishment.

That only makes the self-delusion that much easier when consequences ARE
punishments. There are all sorts of excuses that can be used to pretend
that a consequence isn't a punishment.

snip

But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from other forms
of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at all.

Where did I say they were not or could not be punishing consequences? My
very description and examples should have shown you that it's determined
by circumstance, not "the act" of consequencing.

If none of the situations you called consequences but not punishments on
this newsgroup showed clear symptoms of in fact being punishments, the whole
debate over this issue never would have started.

I can have my child take a time in with me, or a time out by himself. The
former is my task to make a non punishing 'consequence' which I make sure
has some exploring of alternative behaviors and "how we get what we want"
out of life without being criminals.

Or, I can either send the child off, or I can sit him nearby and glare at
him for awhile, or lecture him disapprovingly.

As long as the duration of the time the child has to spend with you is
motivated only by how long you consider it necessary to give the desired
explanation, I'll buy your distinction. But if you make the duration longer
because you want the child to view having another "time in" with you to be
an experience the child won't want to repeat, it's a punishment.

Similarly, forcing a child to sweep only as long as necessary to pay for a
stolen candy bar, plus maybe a bit extra to make up for similar shoplifting
that isn't caught, could be dismissed as nothing more than restitution.
Making the child sweep longer than that because a parent wants the
experience of having to sweep to be something the child won't want to repeat
turns it into a punishment.

And note that it's EXTREMELY easy to rationalize turning a consequence into
a punishment by the idea of "giving the child more time to think"r such.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to the rest of this message, but
I've saved the message because it contains some good parenting ideas.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:0aednQZBP7qgNOHYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for
example, making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about
what he did, or making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch
while other children play safely - are or are not punishments. I just
had an epiphany about that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is
exactly the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who
spank claim that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting.
You noticed. Notice that you cannot spank without it.

But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting,
many object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to
insist that spanking is not hitting.
Nope. Nothing like it at all, for you see, unlike spanking, that you
cannot do without hitting, consequences can be done without punishment.

That only makes the self-delusion that much easier when consequences ARE
punishments. There are all sorts of excuses that can be used to pretend
that a consequence isn't a punishment.

No, I have no excuses. I simply did give punishment consequences, and as
I said, if I found they were being experienced as punishment by the
child, that was signal to me to stop, and look for ways to teach, not
punish.


snip

But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from other forms
of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at all.
Where did I say they were not or could not be punishing consequences? My
very description and examples should have shown you that it's determined
by circumstance, not "the act" of consequencing.

If none of the situations you called consequences but not punishments on
this newsgroup showed clear symptoms of in fact being punishments, the whole
debate over this issue never would have started.

You are correct. That's why I'm addressing your new thread.

It's important to recognize that one can punish a child many ways.

I've seen far too many people that decided to try stopping spanking, go
to an elaborate control system loaded with "consequences" that in fact,
JUST as you point out, were punishment.

An effective consequence isn't viewed by the child as punishment from
the parent.

There are, in such a situation, two kinds of consequences: natural, and
logical.

A natural consequence is not having your guitar to play over the weekend
because you left it in the hallway at school outside your locker, and
you don't know if it will be there Monday morning, and gosh, Dad's just
not up to driving over to the school and trying to get in.

A logical consequence is dad sitting down with you, commiserating, and
working on a plan to find out if the guitar is still there and expecting
YOU to make that embarrassing call to someone with a key to let you go
and fetch it.

No one is getting punished.

I've seen even "child development" experts blow that one.

They tend, like the society they and we are from, to thing in terms of
"painful" consequences both natural and logical. And even use examples
that have a pain factor in them.

Who said consequences have to be painful, or punishing.

They are just WORK. Or, sometimes even play.

And they, for the child (and should be for the adult) just another
learning situation.

So the kid leaves his guitar at school for the third time, and wants to
call again and have someone meet them with their key and you to drive
him over.

The natural consequence might be that the person with the key is away on
vacation, or just says no for whatever reason.

If the child experiences pain over that, YOU didn't do it to him. HE DID
IT.

So it's not YOU punishing him with consequences. The beauty of natural
consequences.

All logical consequences, as far as I'm concerned, should be painless
and simply learning. Work or play. Doesn't matter. It still comes out of
nature. You are a part of nature. And you can decide if you want to hurt
or help. Punish or teach.

I can have my child take a time in with me, or a time out by himself. The
former is my task to make a non punishing 'consequence' which I make sure
has some exploring of alternative behaviors and "how we get what we want"
out of life without being criminals.

Or, I can either send the child off, or I can sit him nearby and glare at
him for awhile, or lecture him disapprovingly.

As long as the duration of the time the child has to spend with you is
motivated only by how long you consider it necessary to give the desired
explanation, I'll buy your distinction. But if you make the duration longer
because you want the child to view having another "time in" with you to be
an experience the child won't want to repeat, it's a punishment.

So I wouldn't do it.

You are presuming things about me that are projections from either
yourself, or what you know of others.

I can recall being so frustrated once when I had a simple confrontation
with my five or six year old son that we both sat in the grass out in
the front yard, crying.

I had promised, because we lived in an isolated area, that when he
needed to play with his friends I'd transport him. It was about three
miles to the nearest one. A bit far for five year old on foot.

I didn't happen to want to go. He reminded me of my promise. I screwed
up and fell into a controlling mode. Catching myself, I struggled to
come out of it but just couldn't get a handle on it that day. Probably
tired, or had some major chores to take care of, or just being self
indulgent. I don't remember.

But within a couple of minutes he and I sorted it out, with HIM, a six
year old, saying NO that he could wait when I said he was right and I'd
get moving now.

How frustrating to have your child refuse to power struggle with you, eh?

If you treat children decently with the same care you would an adult
relationship you get amazing cooperation.

Similarly, forcing a child to sweep only as long as necessary to pay for a
stolen candy bar, plus maybe a bit extra to make up for similar shoplifting
that isn't caught, could be dismissed as nothing more than restitution.

No, it was logical consequences, and it was punishment. I wouldn't claim
otherwise. It just wasn't all that painful for me. I liked being there.
And I learned something.

Making the child sweep longer than that because a parent wants the
experience of having to sweep to be something the child won't want to repeat
turns it into a punishment.

Yep. So I wouldn't do it.

And note that it's EXTREMELY easy to rationalize turning a consequence into
a punishment by the idea of "giving the child more time to think"r such.

Sure it is. Did I say it was easy? It is if you remember the rules, but
sure, people can screw up.

Do you recall what I said I did when I caught myself screwing up?

I stopped, and asked the child what I could do to talk with him about
the problem in a way that we could both have fun. You'd be amazed what
kids come up with.

They will ritualize these interactions...just like we adults do in
building our adult relationships.

For us it was, "time to get out the peaches and ice cream." Then someone
would go for a pad and pencil.

The first time took a bit of time. Later it all happened faster, and
finally there was no need for the ritual. We'd just look at each other,
know how it was going to turn out and cooperate. Me with teaching, the
child with learning. Often in a split second because again the child
knew he could trust that I was not going to struggle with him.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to the rest of this message, but
I've saved the message because it contains some good parenting ideas.

Okay.

Of course spanking is hitting. Who tried to say it's not?

Kane has repeatedly used the word BEATING though.

That carries a considerably different meaning.



0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:0aednQZBP7qgNOHYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for
example, making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about
what he did, or making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch
while other children play safely - are or are not punishments. I just
had an epiphany about that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is
exactly the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who
spank claim that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting.
You noticed. Notice that you cannot spank without it.

But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting,
many object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to
insist that spanking is not hitting.
Nope. Nothing like it at all, for you see, unlike spanking, that you
cannot do without hitting, consequences can be done without punishment.

That only makes the self-delusion that much easier when consequences ARE
punishments. There are all sorts of excuses that can be used to pretend
that a consequence isn't a punishment.

No, I have no excuses. I simply did give punishment consequences, and as
I said, if I found they were being experienced as punishment by the
child, that was signal to me to stop, and look for ways to teach, not
punish.


snip

But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from other forms
of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at all.
Where did I say they were not or could not be punishing consequences? My
very description and examples should have shown you that it's determined
by circumstance, not "the act" of consequencing.

If none of the situations you called consequences but not punishments on
this newsgroup showed clear symptoms of in fact being punishments, the whole
debate over this issue never would have started.

You are correct. That's why I'm addressing your new thread.

It's important to recognize that one can punish a child many ways.

I've seen far too many people that decided to try stopping spanking, go
to an elaborate control system loaded with "consequences" that in fact,
JUST as you point out, were punishment.

An effective consequence isn't viewed by the child as punishment from
the parent.

There are, in such a situation, two kinds of consequences: natural, and
logical.

A natural consequence is not having your guitar to play over the weekend
because you left it in the hallway at school outside your locker, and
you don't know if it will be there Monday morning, and gosh, Dad's just
not up to driving over to the school and trying to get in.

A logical consequence is dad sitting down with you, commiserating, and
working on a plan to find out if the guitar is still there and expecting
YOU to make that embarrassing call to someone with a key to let you go
and fetch it.

No one is getting punished.

I've seen even "child development" experts blow that one.

They tend, like the society they and we are from, to thing in terms of
"painful" consequences both natural and logical. And even use examples
that have a pain factor in them.

Who said consequences have to be painful, or punishing.

They are just WORK. Or, sometimes even play.

And they, for the child (and should be for the adult) just another
learning situation.

So the kid leaves his guitar at school for the third time, and wants to
call again and have someone meet them with their key and you to drive
him over.

The natural consequence might be that the person with the key is away on
vacation, or just says no for whatever reason.

If the child experiences pain over that, YOU didn't do it to him. HE DID
IT.

So it's not YOU punishing him with consequences. The beauty of natural
consequences.

All logical consequences, as far as I'm concerned, should be painless
and simply learning. Work or play. Doesn't matter. It still comes out of
nature. You are a part of nature. And you can decide if you want to hurt
or help. Punish or teach.

I can have my child take a time in with me, or a time out by himself. The
former is my task to make a non punishing 'consequence' which I make sure
has some exploring of alternative behaviors and "how we get what we want"
out of life without being criminals.

Or, I can either send the child off, or I can sit him nearby and glare at
him for awhile, or lecture him disapprovingly.

As long as the duration of the time the child has to spend with you is
motivated only by how long you consider it necessary to give the desired
explanation, I'll buy your distinction. But if you make the duration longer
because you want the child to view having another "time in" with you to be
an experience the child won't want to repeat, it's a punishment.

So I wouldn't do it.

You are presuming things about me that are projections from either
yourself, or what you know of others.

I can recall being so frustrated once when I had a simple confrontation
with my five or six year old son that we both sat in the grass out in
the front yard, crying.

I had promised, because we lived in an isolated area, that when he
needed to play with his friends I'd transport him. It was about three
miles to the nearest one. A bit far for five year old on foot.

I didn't happen to want to go. He reminded me of my promise. I screwed
up and fell into a controlling mode. Catching myself, I struggled to
come out of it but just couldn't get a handle on it that day. Probably
tired, or had some major chores to take care of, or just being self
indulgent. I don't remember.

But within a couple of minutes he and I sorted it out, with HIM, a six
year old, saying NO that he could wait when I said he was right and I'd
get moving now.

How frustrating to have your child refuse to power struggle with you, eh?

If you treat children decently with the same care you would an adult
relationship you get amazing cooperation.

Similarly, forcing a child to sweep only as long as necessary to pay for a
stolen candy bar, plus maybe a bit extra to make up for similar shoplifting
that isn't caught, could be dismissed as nothing more than restitution.

No, it was logical consequences, and it was punishment. I wouldn't claim
otherwise. It just wasn't all that painful for me. I liked being there.
And I learned something.

Making the child sweep longer than that because a parent wants the
experience of having to sweep to be something the child won't want to repeat
turns it into a punishment.

Yep. So I wouldn't do it.

And note that it's EXTREMELY easy to rationalize turning a consequence into
a punishment by the idea of "giving the child more time to think"r such.

Sure it is. Did I say it was easy? It is if you remember the rules, but
sure, people can screw up.

Do you recall what I said I did when I caught myself screwing up?

I stopped, and asked the child what I could do to talk with him about
the problem in a way that we could both have fun. You'd be amazed what
kids come up with.

They will ritualize these interactions...just like we adults do in
building our adult relationships.

For us it was, "time to get out the peaches and ice cream." Then someone
would go for a pad and pencil.

The first time took a bit of time. Later it all happened faster, and
finally there was no need for the ritual. We'd just look at each other,
know how it was going to turn out and cooperate. Me with teaching, the
child with learning. Often in a split second because again the child
knew he could trust that I was not going to struggle with him.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to the rest of this message, but
I've saved the message because it contains some good parenting ideas.

Okay.

Greegor wrote:
Of course spanking is hitting. Who tried to say it's not?

Kane has repeatedly used the word BEATING though.

Yep, for harsh spanking that results in injury. What do YOU call a
beating?

That carries a considerably different meaning.

Yep..that's why we were discussing hitting and spanking, not beating.

You wish to move the goal posts, then do so, but don't pretend you
didn't.

As for who tried to say it's not...my argument is that many spankers
coming here have claimed that spanking is not hitting.

You seem to have been brain dead during that period I suppose.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...rch+this+group

And here's one small example of just such a one, the monkeyboy that
keeps lying and saying he's for parent's making up their own minds:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...55a5b6f?hl=en&

.... So now spanking is equated with hitting. What's new? ;-)
So does that means you are calling 90%+ of parents in the USA
cowards???
;-)

I just love the anti-spanking zealotS. They are their worst enemies.
:-)

Doan ...

The above is from the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...03fd10911dfc94

Where in fact there is a long attempt to disconnect "hitting" from
"spanking."

Does that answer your stupid question?

YOU have been lying. Your cronies have been lying. And you and they
most certainly have tried to detach even severe beatings from abuse and
keep it firmly the right of parents to spank.

Your choice of and defense of articles where even judges decided that
beatings constituted "parental discipline' have been seen.

You can't lie your way out of this, you can only run.

R R R R R R R

Do it...change the argument. Move the goal posts. Try some weasel trick
again.

0:-]





0:- wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:0aednQZBP7qgNOHYnZ2dnUVZ_qisnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
Kane and I have been arguing about whether his "consequences" - for
example, making a child who shoplifts sweep while he's thinking about
what he did, or making a child who runs out in the street sit and watch
while other children play safely - are or are not punishments. I just
had an epiphany about that.

What Kane is doing with the words "punishment" and "consequence" is
exactly the same kind of thing that he complains about when people who
spank claim that "spanking" is not "hitting."

Spanking is technically a form of hitting.
You noticed. Notice that you cannot spank without it.

But because parents who spank
view spanking as fundamentally different from other forms of hitting,
many object to calling spanking hitting, or even go so far as to try to
insist that spanking is not hitting.
Nope. Nothing like it at all, for you see, unlike spanking, that you
cannot do without hitting, consequences can be done without punishment.

That only makes the self-delusion that much easier when consequences ARE
punishments. There are all sorts of excuses that can be used to pretend
that a consequence isn't a punishment.

No, I have no excuses. I simply did give punishment consequences, and as
I said, if I found they were being experienced as punishment by the
child, that was signal to me to stop, and look for ways to teach, not
punish.


snip

But because Kane views them as fundamentally different from other forms
of punishment, he refuses to accept that they are punishments at all.
Where did I say they were not or could not be punishing consequences? My
very description and examples should have shown you that it's determined
by circumstance, not "the act" of consequencing.

If none of the situations you called consequences but not punishments on
this newsgroup showed clear symptoms of in fact being punishments, the whole
debate over this issue never would have started.

You are correct. That's why I'm addressing your new thread.

It's important to recognize that one can punish a child many ways.

I've seen far too many people that decided to try stopping spanking, go
to an elaborate control system loaded with "consequences" that in fact,
JUST as you point out, were punishment.

An effective consequence isn't viewed by the child as punishment from
the parent.

There are, in such a situation, two kinds of consequences: natural, and
logical.

A natural consequence is not having your guitar to play over the weekend
because you left it in the hallway at school outside your locker, and
you don't know if it will be there Monday morning, and gosh, Dad's just
not up to driving over to the school and trying to get in.

A logical consequence is dad sitting down with you, commiserating, and
working on a plan to find out if the guitar is still there and expecting
YOU to make that embarrassing call to someone with a key to let you go
and fetch it.

No one is getting punished.

I've seen even "child development" experts blow that one.

They tend, like the society they and we are from, to thing in terms of
"painful" consequences both natural and logical. And even use examples
that have a pain factor in them.

Who said consequences have to be painful, or punishing.

They are just WORK. Or, sometimes even play.

And they, for the child (and should be for the adult) just another
learning situation.

So the kid leaves his guitar at school for the third time, and wants to
call again and have someone meet them with their key and you to drive
him over.

The natural consequence might be that the person with the key is away on
vacation, or just says no for whatever reason.

If the child experiences pain over that, YOU didn't do it to him. HE DID
IT.

So it's not YOU punishing him with consequences. The beauty of natural
consequences.

All logical consequences, as far as I'm concerned, should be painless
and simply learning. Work or play. Doesn't matter. It still comes out of
nature. You are a part of nature. And you can decide if you want to hurt
or help. Punish or teach.

I can have my child take a time in with me, or a time out by himself. The
former is my task to make a non punishing 'consequence' which I make sure
has some exploring of alternative behaviors and "how we get what we want"
out of life without being criminals.

Or, I can either send the child off, or I can sit him nearby and glare at
him for awhile, or lecture him disapprovingly.

As long as the duration of the time the child has to spend with you is
motivated only by how long you consider it necessary to give the desired
explanation, I'll buy your distinction. But if you make the duration longer
because you want the child to view having another "time in" with you to be
an experience the child won't want to repeat, it's a punishment.

So I wouldn't do it.

You are presuming things about me that are projections from either
yourself, or what you know of others.

I can recall being so frustrated once when I had a simple confrontation
with my five or six year old son that we both sat in the grass out in
the front yard, crying.

I had promised, because we lived in an isolated area, that when he
needed to play with his friends I'd transport him. It was about three
miles to the nearest one. A bit far for five year old on foot.

I didn't happen to want to go. He reminded me of my promise. I screwed
up and fell into a controlling mode. Catching myself, I struggled to
come out of it but just couldn't get a handle on it that day. Probably
tired, or had some major chores to take care of, or just being self
indulgent. I don't remember.

But within a couple of minutes he and I sorted it out, with HIM, a six
year old, saying NO that he could wait when I said he was right and I'd
get moving now.

How frustrating to have your child refuse to power struggle with you, eh?

If you treat children decently with the same care you would an adult
relationship you get amazing cooperation.

Similarly, forcing a child to sweep only as long as necessary to pay for a
stolen candy bar, plus maybe a bit extra to make up for similar shoplifting
that isn't caught, could be dismissed as nothing more than restitution.

No, it was logical consequences, and it was punishment. I wouldn't claim
otherwise. It just wasn't all that painful for me. I liked being there.
And I learned something.

Making the child sweep longer than that because a parent wants the
experience of having to sweep to be something the child won't want to repeat
turns it into a punishment.

Yep. So I wouldn't do it.

And note that it's EXTREMELY easy to rationalize turning a consequence into
a punishment by the idea of "giving the child more time to think"r such.

Sure it is. Did I say it was easy? It is if you remember the rules, but
sure, people can screw up.

Do you recall what I said I did when I caught myself screwing up?

I stopped, and asked the child what I could do to talk with him about
the problem in a way that we could both have fun. You'd be amazed what
kids come up with.

They will ritualize these interactions...just like we adults do in
building our adult relationships.

For us it was, "time to get out the peaches and ice cream." Then someone
would go for a pad and pencil.

The first time took a bit of time. Later it all happened faster, and
finally there was no need for the ritual. We'd just look at each other,
know how it was going to turn out and cooperate. Me with teaching, the
child with learning. Often in a split second because again the child
knew he could trust that I was not going to struggle with him.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to the rest of this message, but
I've saved the message because it contains some good parenting ideas.

Okay.

Kane wrote
You wish to move the goal posts, then do so,
but don't pretend you didn't.

Who moved the "goalposts" from your repetitious
references about BEATING to an argument you could
more easily defend about HITTING?

Why, it was YOU!

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
You wish to move the goal posts, then do so,
but don't pretend you didn't.

Who moved the "goalposts" from your repetitious
references about BEATING to an argument you could
more easily defend about HITTING?

Why, it was YOU!

Odd. Nathan and I had been discussing the issue of whether or not
consequences were punishment or not.

He used an example of the misuse, by spankers, honest man that he works
on being, of the term hitting not applying to spanking. Neither he nor
I moved to "beating," Greg. You broug that up with
........
From: "Greegor"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Subject: Punishments and "Consequences"
Date: 11 Dec 2006 06:11:52 -0800
Of course spanking is hitting. Who tried to say it's not?

Kane has repeatedly used the word BEATING though.

That carries a considerably different meaning.
.........

I made NO mention of beating. YOU DID.

Hence you are the one that moved the goal post to another argument.

The "beating" argument.

If you wish to discuss it fine, but don't lie, again, Greg.

And especially don't accuse others of what you yourself did, not them.

In fact, just go away and play with your nutso antiGovernment fanatic
****ants. They love this kind of lying you just did.

Now Nathan and I wish to continue adult conversation. Take your
childishness somewhere else. Maybe to the lyme group with Kathloon.

Or, maybe this will be the day you grow up and would like to debate the
issue of consequences v punishment?

We've settled the hit/spank issue like adults.

And you've contributed nothing to it be the results you don't like. My
posting archival postings that indeed show that your buddies here have
tried to deny spanking is hitting.

Thanks. You kiddies do have some use here after all.

You said, stupid little boy, "Of course spanking is hitting. Who tried
to say it's not?"

Who, Greg, well let's make a list, shall we?

From: No1BadBoy - view profile
Date: Sun, Aug 8 2004 11:55 am

[[[ A sock, and I think you know who ]]]

.... You know kane there is a difference between hitting and spankings.
If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, that's hitting. If I
tell you
that your going to get spanked for misconduct, then you conduct
yourself
inappropriately and then get spanked for it, that's just what it says
it
is........................a spanking. ...

[[[ Moving right along... 0:- ]]]

From: Neal Feldman - view profile
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2000 12:00 am
Email: Neal Feldman
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Alborn wrote:
"D. Doan" wrote:

From Mon Mar 6 22:26:34 PST 2000
snip

There goes Lavonne with her twisted logic again. You are committing
a logic fallacy; it is call "false analogy". Hitting your wife is
illegal, owning slaves is illegal but SPANKING (not hitting) is
legal.

:These things were both legal at one time. Did this make them any more
:right?
:
:I think *you* miss the point, Doan.

No. It is still a false analogy since the relationship between parent/child
is very different than slave/master or wife/husband.

What does the relationship have to do with it, Doan?

Uh, lessee Gerald... ummm... EVERYTHING?

The relationship is different, therefore it should be legal to hit?

No, Gerald, it should be legal to spank, and it is. Your inflammatory
misuse of
'hit' in this context is, as usual, fraudulent, unless you have managed
to
disprove the universal truism {spanking}{hitting}. ...

[[[ Am I answering your question about who would claim spanking is not
hitting yet, Greg? ]]]

From: Neal Feldman - view profile
Date: Mon, Aug 14 2000 12:00 am
Email: Neal Feldman
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking

....... so he desperately attempts
to dishonestly use the misrepresentative term 'hitting' as if the two
were
equivalent.

And he has to date YET been able to disprove {spanking}{hitting} or
manage to
somehow prove {spanking}={hitting}. ...

[[[ You following along here, bunky? ]]]

From: doan - view profile
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2000 2:32 am
Email: doan
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking, misc.kids

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, chiz wrote:
Don wrote in message ...

Spanking and hitting do not necessarily connote the same actions.

All spanking is hitting. While it is true that not all hitting is spanking,
certainly, it is the case that all spanking is hitting.

And all hitting is touching. Unlike you talk about the specific, the
context is loss. But if we talk specifically about spanking, you
can't play your word games, right chiz? :-)

Doan

[[[ Keeping up alright, Greg? ]]]

From: observer - view profile
Date: Thurs, Aug 30 2001 11:09 am
Email: observer
Groups: alt.parenting.solutions, alt.parenting.spanking

"There is a difference between hitting a person and a baseball."

Only in the class of object. The antispanking zealots are fond of
saying that
spanking equals hitting. I tend to agree and carry the inane
comparison to its
logical conclusion.

[[[ Surely you'll apologize for your mistake, Greg, won't you?
And by the following it would appear that good old lil 'o' would have
counted YOU among those that were not quite right in the head. You just
became an irrational honorary antispanking zealot, Greg.

Or have you changed your mind and decided you wish to go back to the
'spanking is not hitting' side of the fence? I mean you do change your
views and biases in the strangest ways at the strangest times. ]]]

From: observer - view profile
Date: Thurs, Aug 30 2001 8:53 pm

.... Antispanking zealots frequently like to substitute the word "hit"
for the word
"spank" for its propagand value. However, in the real world, most
rational
people know the difference. Neal is right about that. ...

So, Greg, when you spanked the little girl, you were hitting her,
right?

Yet some of these folks are your buddies. You ready to stand up to them
and tell them they are wrong, are you?

If not, why not? Isn't that cowardly?

Kane