Natural consequences.

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
Kane,

Becca made a common error in her interpretation of natural consequences.
She strayed into punitive discipline.

Well, I was 22 when we had our first child. I can't count the number of
times over the early years when I did the same. We go with what we
know.

becca works toward knowledge, and risks making mistakes. How we all
learn.

Well, except Doan. He won't make any effort to contribute for fear
he'll do as he's always done; be wrong. And as a spanked child, as you
can see from his posting, he's extremely careful in this area --
compulsive even.

He was the inspiration for my title for spankers: "Cumpulsives."

When I was a young parent someone, and of course I can't recall who,
could have been me, could have anyone, noticed something and stated it.
Which is more important, the child or the "thing?"

Getting to the point of letting go, given how so many of us were
raised, is no small task. And letting go of "control" and moving to a
partnership, each doing their part, the child and the parent, is pretty
hard until one becomes accustomed to it.

You have the advantage of having been there. I'd like others to
experience that.

I worry that Doan might have children one day. He never listens, only
speaks. He focuses on "mistakes" or disagreement and for purposes of
disruption labels such things "lies."

It's fascinating, after having worked with the populations I did, to
see how one that likely got no help, turns out as an adult.

I wonder choice he will make when the time comes. Will he spank? Or am
I being to nosey?

0:-


If a child looses his/her shoes in the middle of the winter, forcing the
child to wear shoes that are too small is punishment, it's painful, and
it's bad for the child's feet.

While a parent may not need to buy the most expensive shoes to replace
the lost shoes, a little understanding goes a long way. How about, "I'm
sorry you lost your shoes. I don't have the money to buy the same
shoes, but let's go find something you like and we can afford?"

I did it many times, with a child who repeatedly lost her coat. She's
now a graduate of Northwestern University and working as an AmeriCorp
volunteer.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:
Despite the effort to sidetrack us, I'm interested in exploring
parenting methods with you. We've at least two well schooled and highly
experiences sources here to tap into if they have any thoughts on the
subject.

As you can see, I'm hoping to encourage folks to explore supportive
rather than punitive methods tactics.

Thank you for hanging in here and continuing to contribute.

Kane



0:- wrote:

beccafromlalaland wrote:

Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.



It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as
punishment and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95
they cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope,
you actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?


Forever young?


You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.


Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

A six year old is a young child. A pre teener is not. A toddler is a
toddler. And a preschooler is a preschooler.

Everyone else recognizes such categories. Why not you?

Young child is non-specific and suggests you are sloppy in your wording.

Hahaha! What a hypocrite! Isn't it you and your kinds that insisted in
using "hitting" instead of "spanking"? Which one is more "specific",
ignoranus kane0?


If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

Stop stealing my expressions, child.

Hahaha! I thought you STOLE it from beccafromlalaland!

Doan

On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?

You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-

Gosh, I nearly forgot.

Your comment then would suggest that becca chose a pointless
consequence, if the age range is in fact what you refer to.
Consequencing a child that young would be an abstraction to concrete
relationship in the example given.

Why not take that up with her?

Why would I do that? I don't know her child nor her circumstances. It's
up to her to do what is best for her child. You don't want her to
make up her own mind? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?


Forever young?


You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.


Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

A six year old is a young child. A pre teener is not. A toddler is a
toddler. And a preschooler is a preschooler.

Everyone else recognizes such categories. Why not you?

Young child is non-specific and suggests you are sloppy in your wording.

Hahaha! What a hypocrite! Isn't it you and your kinds that insisted in
using "hitting" instead of "spanking"? Which one is more "specific",
ignoranus kane0?

Neither. They are the same. One is the same as the other. If you don't
think so try spanking something...let's use something inantimate if you
will please. Then hit something.

Tell us the difference. Now if you make a fist and wish to call that
'hitting' then feel free, but when you spanking, exactly what is the
motion and impact called that is used to create spanking?

Can you spank without hitting the object of your spanking?

"Hit" is the impact. You could call it also, "impact." That does not
disqualify "hitting" as the verb.

Glad to help with your English lessons.


0:-


If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

Stop stealing my expressions, child.

Hahaha! I thought you STOLE it from beccafromlalaland!

Why would you do that?

0:-


Doan

Doan wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?

You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-

Gosh, I nearly forgot.

Your comment then would suggest that becca chose a pointless
consequence, if the age range is in fact what you refer to.
Consequencing a child that young would be an abstraction to concrete
relationship in the example given.

Why not take that up with her?


Why would I do that?

I don't know. You do when you reply to posts of hers or others on the
topic she is discussing.

I don't know her child nor her circumstances.

But you were willing to comment, were you not? And she did say "young
child," and you repeated her, did you not?

You did quote Embry with "Young children lack the cognitive skills to
link the abstraction to the concrete circumstances..." did you not?

If you are going to comment in conversation, can you not presume you are
then attempting to influence those you speak to?

It's
up to her to do what is best for her child.

Sure it is. See anything in my comments that is any more about
influencing her than your own comments?

Are you suggesting that she cannot pick and choose from among the many
comments her post would suggest she was seeking, and make up her own mind?

Or are you trying to discourage her from posting here?

If so, why?

You don't want her to
make up her own mind? ;-)

You don't want her to make up her own mind when you respond to an
exchange between her an other posters? 0:-

Doan

You forgot the "AFfromDreamLand," didn't you?

Isn't that was your new 'nym?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

On 6 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?


Forever young?


You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.


Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

A six year old is a young child. A pre teener is not. A toddler is a
toddler. And a preschooler is a preschooler.

Everyone else recognizes such categories. Why not you?

Young child is non-specific and suggests you are sloppy in your wording.

Hahaha! What a hypocrite! Isn't it you and your kinds that insisted in
using "hitting" instead of "spanking"? Which one is more "specific",
ignoranus kane0?

Neither. They are the same. One is the same as the other. If you don't
think so try spanking something...let's use something inantimate if you
will please. Then hit something.

Tell us the difference. Now if you make a fist and wish to call that
'hitting' then feel free, but when you spanking, exactly what is the
motion and impact called that is used to create spanking?

Can you spank without hitting the object of your spanking?

Can you pat without hitting the one you are patting? ;-)

"Hit" is the impact. You could call it also, "impact." That does not
disqualify "hitting" as the verb.

Glad to help with your English lessons.

Glad to show everyone your STUPIDITY! ;-)

Doan


0:-


If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

Stop stealing my expressions, child.

Hahaha! I thought you STOLE it from beccafromlalaland!

Why would you do that?

0:-


Doan

Doan wrote:
On 6 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

On 3 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:



Doan wrote:


Hahaha! Applying the logic of an adult to that of a child. If there
is anything that can be learned from the Embry study, it's that "Young
children lack the cognitive skills to link the abstraction to the concrete
circumstances..."

Forever?


Forever young?



You seem so out of touch with reality. The sample was age specific. And
the report included comments on children older than that were beginning
to be in fact growing more able to make abstract connections.


Hahaha! I specificly said "young chidlren", STUPID!

A six year old is a young child. A pre teener is not. A toddler is a
toddler. And a preschooler is a preschooler.

Everyone else recognizes such categories. Why not you?

Young child is non-specific and suggests you are sloppy in your wording.


Hahaha! What a hypocrite! Isn't it you and your kinds that insisted in
using "hitting" instead of "spanking"? Which one is more "specific",
ignoranus kane0?

Neither. They are the same. One is the same as the other. If you don't
think so try spanking something...let's use something inantimate if you
will please. Then hit something.

Tell us the difference. Now if you make a fist and wish to call that
'hitting' then feel free, but when you spanking, exactly what is the
motion and impact called that is used to create spanking?

Can you spank without hitting the object of your spanking?


Can you pat without hitting the one you are patting? ;-)

No. That's impossible. When my hand, presuming that is the instrument
being used, impacts with the person my hand hit them.

Are you suggesting, I hope, that spanking lightly enough to not call it
a hit will universally pass the test of 'spanking' for even a minority
of spankers?

The arguments in support of it always, when questioned, discuss the
effect of pain to teach.

Can you pat lightly enough the person can't feel it?

When they can't, it's no longer a hit.

Same with spanking and hitting.

"Hit" is the impact. You could call it also, "impact." That does not
disqualify "hitting" as the verb.

Glad to help with your English lessons.


Glad to show everyone your STUPIDITY! ;-)

Yelling doesn't prove you correct.

It does point out though that when you are stumped for an intelligent
answer it's your usual response, along with name calling.

Doan

As I said, English language lessons, with a bit of critical thinking
thrown in for your edification.

Best wishes, Kane






0:-

If what you say is true, then you must be referring to yourself. None
of the rest of us failed to pass out of the earlier stage.

0:-


Grow up! ;-)

Stop stealing my expressions, child.


Hahaha! I thought you STOLE it from beccafromlalaland!

Why would you do that?

0:-

Doan





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Yup, that's it! beccafromlalaland is just not as smart as you, LaVonne.
;-) So tell us, if you child has "repeatedly" lost her coast and
you had to buy her a new one each time, you child obviously had not
learned a lesson right, Dr. LaVonne? ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

Becca made a common error in her interpretation of natural consequences.
She strayed into punitive discipline.

If a child looses his/her shoes in the middle of the winter, forcing the
child to wear shoes that are too small is punishment, it's painful, and
it's bad for the child's feet.

While a parent may not need to buy the most expensive shoes to replace
the lost shoes, a little understanding goes a long way. How about, "I'm
sorry you lost your shoes. I don't have the money to buy the same
shoes, but let's go find something you like and we can afford?"

I did it many times, with a child who repeatedly lost her coat. She's
now a graduate of Northwestern University and working as an AmeriCorp
volunteer.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:
Despite the effort to sidetrack us, I'm interested in exploring
parenting methods with you. We've at least two well schooled and highly
experiences sources here to tap into if they have any thoughts on the
subject.

As you can see, I'm hoping to encourage folks to explore supportive
rather than punitive methods tactics.

Thank you for hanging in here and continuing to contribute.

Kane



0:- wrote:

beccafromlalaland wrote:

Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.



It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as
punishment and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95
they cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope,
you actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:

Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-

0:- wrote:
Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

Becca made a common error in her interpretation of natural consequences.
She strayed into punitive discipline.


Well, I was 22 when we had our first child. I can't count the number of
times over the early years when I did the same. We go with what we
know.

Yes, we do. And there were times when I thought I was using logical
consequences when I was really straying into the punitive area. My
youngest, now 23, has seldom turned off a light in her life. I'm not
the best, either. When she was 7 or 8, I decided that if she left her
light on when she went to school, I would keep part of her allowance
money. Not understanding the principle of electricity costing money,
she perceived this as a punishment, which I learned when I overheard her
telling her friends that she had no money because she was being punished
for leaving the lights on. Children are the best teachers.

becca works toward knowledge, and risks making mistakes. How we all
learn.

Mistakes are how we all learn, and I learned about my mistake with the
lights.

Well, except Doan. He won't make any effort to contribute for fear
he'll do as he's always done; be wrong. And as a spanked child, as you
can see from his posting, he's extremely careful in this area --
compulsive even.

He was the inspiration for my title for spankers: "Cumpulsives."

And I understand why.

When I was a young parent someone, and of course I can't recall who,
could have been me, could have anyone, noticed something and stated it.
Which is more important, the child or the "thing?"

Obviously the most important thing is the child. For me, the "thing"
was the lights.

Getting to the point of letting go, given how so many of us were
raised, is no small task. And letting go of "control" and moving to a
partnership, each doing their part, the child and the parent, is pretty
hard until one becomes accustomed to it.

But it felt so good, Kane. I finally understood the issue of the
lights. I reminded her to turn off the lights. When she forgot, I
turned them off. I made a bigger effort to remember turning off the
lights. She reminded me. It was a partnership, and there were no more
fights, no more control issues, and no more punishment -- even though I
didn't view the consequences as punishment at the time.

You have the advantage of having been there. I'd like others to
experience that.

Yes, I've been there.

I worry that Doan might have children one day. He never listens, only
speaks. He focuses on "mistakes" or disagreement and for purposes of
disruption labels such things "lies."

It's fascinating, after having worked with the populations I did, to
see how one that likely got no help, turns out as an adult.

I wonder choice he will make when the time comes. Will he spank? Or am
I being to nosey?

Are you sure the time hasn't come? Are you sure Doan has no children?
I know I fear for any children he has, or may have in the future. While
I know nothing of Doan's childhood, what he has revealed on the ng
certainly fits the profile of a spanked and probably legally abused
child who received no help. He hasn't learned to listen, and he never
admits mistakes. It is personally frightening to admit a mistake, and
when one is very fragile due to one's childhood, admitting a mistake
becomes unthinkable. Verbal attacks allow one to perceive he or she is
in control, and the attacker seems to feel the he/she is covering up
personal pain and insecurity.

LaVonne

0:-


If a child looses his/her shoes in the middle of the winter, forcing the
child to wear shoes that are too small is punishment, it's painful, and
it's bad for the child's feet.

While a parent may not need to buy the most expensive shoes to replace
the lost shoes, a little understanding goes a long way. How about, "I'm
sorry you lost your shoes. I don't have the money to buy the same
shoes, but let's go find something you like and we can afford?"

I did it many times, with a child who repeatedly lost her coat. She's
now a graduate of Northwestern University and working as an AmeriCorp
volunteer.

LaVonne

0:- wrote:

Despite the effort to sidetrack us, I'm interested in exploring
parenting methods with you. We've at least two well schooled and highly
experiences sources here to tap into if they have any thoughts on the
subject.

As you can see, I'm hoping to encourage folks to explore supportive
rather than punitive methods tactics.

Thank you for hanging in here and continuing to contribute.

Kane



0:- wrote:


beccafromlalaland wrote:


Some non-spank parents also make a distinction between Natural
consequences and Logical consequences when the "true" Natural
consequence is inappropriate.

Example: Your child loses his shoes in the Middle of Winter. The
Natural consequence would be he goes shoeless until new shoes can be
purchased, but that is not appropriate at this time of year (but would
be in the summer imho) Logical concequence would be A) He has to wear
shoes that are too small for him until new shoes can be purchased
and/or B) he gets no say in the shoes that are purchased to replace the
lost ones and if their ugly...hey sorry you had nice shoes that you
didn't take care of.



It's possible that behaviorist methods have reached their effective
limit. Research shows these methods to not in fact teach the child
problem solving and self management.

If it's parent applied, it will often be seen by the child as
punishment and manipulation.

After all, if we lose our own shoes what do we do?

Wear too small shoes for a while for the logical consequence, or do we
go and buy another pair and move on?

I think, if we are going to apply a "logical" consequence it should be
in the nature of teaching about economics -- budgeting.

"We need shoes for you honey to keep your feet safe, but the $48.95
they cost I won't have for snacks and desserts for the next two weeks."

You are sharing in the "consequences" and that, to a child that enjoys
an atmosphere of trust and cooperation and support with the parent may
-- no, will -- have more impact than any consequence that might appear
punishing if applied only to him or her.

We are all in it together, aren't we? Family, that is?

If you lose your shoes does he or she get to consequence you? Nope,
you actually cut back on other expenditures and all share in that.

Both you and she are inspired to work to cut loss and increase gain.

Just my 36.7 cents worth (1975 dollars adjusted for inflation)

Kane



0:- Wrote:


Often when discussing child discipline by parents the question comes up
on allowing the child to learn by "Natural Consequences."

The argument that comes flying back usually consist of, "Let him get
hit by a car?" "Burned by the pot of scalding water on the stove?"
etc.


Non spankers tend to snort at that foolishness, but there IS a
validity
to the rebuttal.

The problem lies in confusion of terms.

What non-spankers really mean (and often their words say so but the
pro
spank crowd inserts their own translation...."natural consequences")
is
"Logical" consequences.

It would not be logical to allow a child to run into the street and
get
hit by a car, but it would be logical to take him, as the Embry
experiment taught, and have him sit and watch other children doing
'safe play.'

It woul be a logical consequence, if he is NOT going out toward the
street during his play, to praise and reward. That TOO is a logical
consequence of behavior.

Too often this is misunderstood by those that want to argue against
non-spanking and replacement of spanking with other parenting methods.

Then to, "Reasoning with the child" comes up in the argment, with the
pros claiming that one cannot reason with a child over everything.

The answer of course is that non-spankers do NOT present 'reasoning'
as
the only alternative.

Non-spankers by habit and need have to have a larger repertoire of
parenting tactics. Spanking is easy...when 'nothing else works.'

The question spankers should ask themselves is this: "How did a little
child manage to have MORE skills to aggravate me than I have to
correct
her without spanking?"

In other words, spankers, just how stupid and ignorant do you wish to
remain?

doan't dumb?

0:-

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote:



0:- wrote:
Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Kane,

Becca made a common error in her interpretation of natural consequences.
She strayed into punitive discipline.


Well, I was 22 when we had our first child. I can't count the number of
times over the early years when I did the same. We go with what we
know.

Yes, we do. And there were times when I thought I was using logical
consequences when I was really straying into the punitive area. My
youngest, now 23, has seldom turned off a light in her life. I'm not
the best, either. When she was 7 or 8, I decided that if she left her
light on when she went to school, I would keep part of her allowance
money. Not understanding the principle of electricity costing money,
she perceived this as a punishment, which I learned when I overheard her
telling her friends that she had no money because she was being punished
for leaving the lights on. Children are the best teachers.

becca works toward knowledge, and risks making mistakes. How we all
learn.

Mistakes are how we all learn, and I learned about my mistake with the
lights.

Well, except Doan. He won't make any effort to contribute for fear
he'll do as he's always done; be wrong. And as a spanked child, as you
can see from his posting, he's extremely careful in this area --
compulsive even.

He was the inspiration for my title for spankers: "Cumpulsives."

And I understand why.

When I was a young parent someone, and of course I can't recall who,
could have been me, could have anyone, noticed something and stated it.
Which is more important, the child or the "thing?"

Obviously the most important thing is the child. For me, the "thing"
was the lights.

Getting to the point of letting go, given how so many of us were
raised, is no small task. And letting go of "control" and moving to a
partnership, each doing their part, the child and the parent, is pretty
hard until one becomes accustomed to it.

But it felt so good, Kane. I finally understood the issue of the
lights. I reminded her to turn off the lights. When she forgot, I
turned them off. I made a bigger effort to remember turning off the
lights. She reminded me. It was a partnership, and there were no more
fights, no more control issues, and no more punishment -- even though I
didn't view the consequences as punishment at the time.

You have the advantage of having been there. I'd like others to
experience that.

Yes, I've been there.

I worry that Doan might have children one day. He never listens, only
speaks. He focuses on "mistakes" or disagreement and for purposes of
disruption labels such things "lies."

It's fascinating, after having worked with the populations I did, to
see how one that likely got no help, turns out as an adult.

I wonder choice he will make when the time comes. Will he spank? Or am
I being to nosey?

Are you sure the time hasn't come? Are you sure Doan has no children?
I know I fear for any children he has, or may have in the future. While
I know nothing of Doan's childhood, what he has revealed on the ng
certainly fits the profile of a spanked and probably legally abused
child who received no help. He hasn't learned to listen, and he never
admits mistakes. It is personally frightening to admit a mistake, and
when one is very fragile due to one's childhood, admitting a mistake
becomes unthinkable. Verbal attacks allow one to perceive he or she is
in control, and the attacker seems to feel the he/she is covering up
personal pain and insecurity.

LaVonne

Hahaha! What a hypocirt! From what you have revealed here about your
childhood, Lavonne, what you said above more aptly apply to you!
Tell me, were you "legally abused"? ;-)

Doan