Parent-Child Negotiations

Doan wrote:

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

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

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

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

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

Chris

LOL!

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

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

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

Doan wrote:

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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

I've committed no crime against you,

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

LOL!

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

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

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


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

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

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

I like this one. :-)


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

LOL!


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

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


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

LOL!


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

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

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


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

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

LOL!

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

Reality, what a concept! ;-)


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

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


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

LOL!

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

LOL!

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

LOL!

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

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

LOL!


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

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

LOL!


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

LOL!

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

LOL!


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


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

LOL!


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

LOL!


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

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

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

LOL!


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

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

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

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


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

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


LOL!

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

You make me want to vomit.


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

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


LOL!

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

LOL!


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

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


LOL!

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

LOL!


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


LOL!

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

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


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

LOL!

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

LOL!

Doan
---------
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

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

But if violations of agreements become a
significant problem, some kind of additional consequence is needed if
the agreements are to work. (Steve, what do you think about the
relationship between this issue and Breach of Contract in adult law?)
-------------------
ANY coerced contract IS A NULL contract, LAW 101.
Steve

And are all contracts between parents and children "coerced"?
-------------
If a parent has not entirely forsworn all authority over a child, yes.


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

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

But if violations of agreements become a
significant problem, some kind of additional consequence is needed if
the agreements are to work. (Steve, what do you think about the
relationship between this issue and Breach of Contract in adult law?)
-------------------
ANY coerced contract IS A NULL contract, LAW 101.
Steve

And are all contracts between parents and children "coerced"? If I
understand the positions you've been taking correctly, an agreement for a
parent to offer to buy a child a video game in exchange for the child's
mowing the lawn each of the next two weekends would be considered
legitimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Doan wrote:

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

Doan wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 12 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

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

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

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

Chris

LOL!

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

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

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

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

Doan

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

Doan wrote:

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

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

My fantasy doesn't include you! ;-)


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

I've committed no crime against you,

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

LOL!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

I like this one. :-)


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

LOL!


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

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

I told you! :-)

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

LOL!


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

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

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

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


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

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

LOL!

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

Reality, what a concept! ;-)


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

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

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


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

LOL!

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

LOL!

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

LOL!

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

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

LOL!


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

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

LOL!


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

****! ;-)


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

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

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


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

LOL!

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

LOL!


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


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

LOL!


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

LOL!


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

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

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

LOL!


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


LOL!

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

You make me want to vomit.


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

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


LOL!

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

LOL!


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

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


LOL!

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

LOL!


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


LOL!

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

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

Come over, coward!

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

LOL!

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

LOL!

Doan
---------
Steve

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

Doan

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoken on high from Mount Olympus yet again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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