Subject:
|
Re: Parental strategies? (was: Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:28:37 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@^antispam^uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
3723 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
> Thanks Chris for addressing that which is too rarely looked at. Children
> no more need a master on Earth than a master in heaven.
Uh, we don't know that...
> Most people do not
> understand the purpose of the mind and have no concept of how to kindle its
> fire.
And you do? Please enlighten, but first please cite your source of this
understanding.
> I think you have done a good job of showing how most people stifle
> that fire before it's even begun.
I think he's shown how to get your kid to call you by your first name, that's
about all.
> For clarity, when a child is first
> capable of thought, the popular thing to do is tell him that the ultimate
> decision maker is not himself, but some fiction in heaven
Uh, we don't know that....
> that will
> determine his immortal and eternal fate and so he must act in accordance
> with whatever whims of self-abnegation that his society has lived under for
> generations. Then, the popular thing to do is tell this same child that he
> is not the decision maker in his own life, that the person doing the telling
> is the ultimate authority during this phase of life. By the time the
> speaker allows the grown child to make decisions his mind no longer
> functions properly, it ceased to long ago, and every decision made is a
> mistake,
Makes me wonder how we even survived as a species!
> made at the behest of the popular wisdom which he is completely
> dependent on because he is unsure of his own wisdom (rightfully so, as he
> has none to call his own). Instead of learning and growing wise, he has
> been trained to memorize and accept popular wisdom, and for the 98.85% who
> aren't aware of it, the popular wisdom just is not that wise.
For the record, Christianity teaches that "popular wisdom" is foolish; just
about everything Christ taught turned conventional wisdom on its ear.
-John
>
>
> "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
> news:G42qts.Hov@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > > > There isn't any "love extortion" going on at all.
> > > >
> > > > You mean there shouldn't be, right? Because I believe it's not too • uncommon
> > > > for exactly that to take place. And even when the parents don't know • that
> > > > that's exactly what they're doing.
> > >
> > > Yes, a parent's love should be unconditional for their children. Even • so, I'm
> > not
> > > sure one can really turn love on and off for their kids.
> >
> > I believe that love (real love) can't be turned on and off. It would • sometimes
> > be easier if it could. But just because you can't turn your love for your • kids
> > on and off, doesn't mean that you can't pretend that you can and abuse • them
> > with that tactic.
> >
> > > > > A child obeys his parents because he recognizes that they love him
> > > > > and care for him and want what's best for him.
> > > >
> > > > I can't imagine why you would think that.
> > >
> > > I tested my theory with my own kids last night. They actually gave me • that
> > > answer. Maybe I have brain washed them...
> >
> > Maybe so. Or maybe they just haven't had the opportunity to think freely • about
> > it because it would hurt too much.
> >
> > <as an aside, this last statement, and statement that I am yet to make • will be
> > attacks on your parenting. I don't know how to have this conversation • without
> > saying stuff fairly bluntly. But you should know that it is chance that • you
> > are being singled out, and that I understand you are wildly more the norm • than
> > I.>
> >
> > > > Do you believe that your children
> > > > love you and care for you and want what's best for you?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > Do you obey them?
> > >
> > > Usually. Depends. They don't have the final say like their mother and • I, if
> > > that is what you mean. BTW, why ask that?
> >
> > Then it's not obeying. It is following suggestions. You obey people who • are
> > somehow your superiors. I asked because you seemed to suggest that your • kids
> > should obey you because you love and want the best for them. It seems • that the
> > logic should flow both ways.
> >
> > > > And how exactly do you know what's best for your kids?
> > >
> > > Mostly from my experience of having been a kid once.
> >
> > A completely DIFFERENT experience. In a different time. In a different • place.
> > With different culture and context. You are not, and were not, them.
> >
> > > What makes you think that a 6 year old would have *any* idea of what's
> > > best for them? Sure, they would know what makes them happy, but beyond
> > > the very immediate future, it's impossible for them to have any clue.
> >
> > They know within the context of their experience (same as us) what they • want.
> > What's so bad about being happy? You might be surprised by the results if • you
> > had ever followed a child who was given those choices. They make good
> > decisions.
> >
> > > > They are smart enough to figure out the times when that is true. Don't • get
> > me
> > > > wrong, guidance is exactly what our kids need from us. We provide the • widsom
> > > > that we can, and they make their own decisions.
> > >
> > > No. We have wisdom that guides them along a path to maturity, whether • they
> > like
> > > it (at the moment) or not. Example: I am insisting that my kids play • piano.
> > I
> > > wish that I had had the opportunity to play when I was young, but didn't. • Now,
> > > sometimes I have to get on them about practicing, and my son probably • would
> > quit
> > > if I let him, but I won't. I am extremely confident that one day (but • not
> > today)
> > > he will thank me.
> >
> > OK, so instead of correcting something that was left out of your life, by
> > sitting down to the piano yourself, you're living vacariously through your
> > children. And you even know that they don't want to. Why doesn't that • seem
> > bizarre to you? You know when he'll thank you? When he's making his own • son
> > do the same thing. He'll be too cowed to see that the road to happiness • isn't
> > playing the piano. If and when your kids wish to express themselves • musically,
> > they will. Adults can learn to play. My mother taught music for many • years,
> > private lessons (piano and guitar), and jr. high band and general music. • I
> > have watched people learn the piano.
> >
> > > > 2) Video games are not a waste of time. Many of them develop important
> > > > thinking strategies and others develop hand-eye motor skills.
> > >
> > > What if he spent 4 hours a day playing them. That's the problem-- they • are
> > > addictive. Kinda like LUGNET;-)
> >
> > Video games and LUGNET are both good for the mind. I spent about that • time
> > frame playing video games from the age of twelve to the age of sixteen. • I'm
> > fine. I still like computer games, but not mostly hand-eye games anymore. • So
> > what if he did spend that time playing? Playing is good. What exactly is • your
> > outcome by preventing your kids from having that much of that kind of fun?
> >
> > > > 3)Similarly, if I were to lie to him about homework being needed for • future
> > > > happiness, I'm sure he would detect it and disrespect me for it. • Homework
> > > > is needed when you want to learn stuff.
> > >
> > > Homework is needed to pass grades. Don't pass grades, don't get an • education.
> >
> > Grades, shmades. Grades (both kinds) are another broken paradigm. You do
> > understand that the important part of education is not the numbers that
> > teachers send home on report cards don't you? Important education is when
> > people (your kids in this case) learn something that makes them • intellectually
> > greater. When they discover the magic of numbers or how all these various
> > words with similar meanings start with the same sound. If you don't • squash
> > their desire to learn, they'll learn and learn and learn, but I do admit • they
> > won't learn the same things that society pumps down their throats in • public
> > school. Instead, they'll learn much more and it'll all be relevant to • their
> > lives. And in the process, they will learn how easy learning new things • is, so
> > when they want to go to college, but they kind of ignored foreign • languages,
> > they'll get the books at the library and they'll pass some tests to get • in.
> >
> > > I think we could agree that life without an education would be unhappy.
> >
> > There is no such thing as life without an education, so your stance is
> > meaningless. But life without freedom is unhappy. Part of life is • figuring
> > out when to give up some freedoms too. Like getting married, having kids,
> > going to college, and lots of other things. But there's plenty of time • for
> > that (and a more thoughtful understanding of the implications) after • people get
> > to experience their freedom.
> >
> > > > People want to learn stuff when they're
> > > > ready for it. I never did any meaningful learning because it was • asigned to
> > me
> > > > for a required class. But when I took elective courses, I learned • lots.
> > >
> > > There are no elective classes in first grade.
> >
> > You should use a different school. My son is faced with elective • activities
> > through most of the school day. I would rather the school be more free • with
> > him, but this one is the best we could find.
> >
> > > > However, the most appropriate response to a child not doing his
> > > > homework is that he looks unprepared in class the next day and he'll • want to
> > > > keep up with his contemporaries. That is the response that the • universe
> > > > imposes. Your pidly little LEGO punishment is just silly.
> > >
> > > Not at all. It's called prioritization.
> >
> > When you prioritize another person's time it's called slavery. That is • the
> > crux of what slavery is. When one person controls the time of another.
> >
> > > There are only so many hours in a day.
> > > I know that my son will play with LEGO for hours on end without realizing • it.
> > > Then suddenly, no time for homework. I inform him of this and he agrees, • and
> > > so does his homework first.
> >
> > Wait, the way you say it now, it sounds like a suggestion. Suggestions • are
> > great. I suggest to my son that he might want to get his homework out of • the
> > way too. Sometimes he does, and other times he doesn't.
> >
> > > What is silly is letting your child humiliate himself in school. You
> > > could warn him first of that possibility, and then it would be his
> > > choice. Why should kids have to learn stuff the hard way all the time?
> >
> > In my experience kids are much smarter than the ones you seem to have
> > experience with. They don't need to be told every little thing. But, • telling
> > them that that might happen is OK, I guess. Again, you seem to suggest • that
> > you'd nudge them a little and then it would be their choice. Earlier • you'd
> > steal their toys and hold them hostage until they complied with your • dictates.
> > Which is it?
> >
> > And for your last question above, they learn better from experience than • from
> > being lectured. If you tell them they might want to avoid that kind of
> > embarrassment, then you'll have to tell them every day. What about when
> > college comes, and they're not used to thinking for themselves? But if • they
> > experience it once or twice, then it sticks with them.
> >
> > > > If my son is not ready to take the challenges of the next grade, then • he
> > > > should remain in a program that prepares him for those challenges. We
> > > > strongly considered keeping him in kindergarten for an extra year • because
> > > > he is a bit behind his peers emotionally.
> > >
> > > But, according to you, that would be his decision, not yours, no?
> >
> > His and the school's, with our council. And that's what finally decided • us.
> > His K year was in a class of K and pre-K kids. He could have stayed in K • with
> > the younger group, doing the same kind of work, or he could go to 1st with • the
> > older group and get into some meater explorations. He opted to move on. • And
> > surprise, surprise, it seems to have been the right choice.
> >
> > > > So it's an arbitrary punishment that you hope (for whatever reason) • will
> > > > motivate them. And I'm sure it does. I'm sure it motivates them to do • that
> > > > boring mind-bending homework just to get dad off their back. It takes • all
> > the
> > > > joy from learning. That's a great goal.
> > >
> > > Hey, doing homework is not an option, but a requirement.
> >
> > Hehehehe. Come again?
> >
> > Doing homework is absolutely an option. It is one with consequences. • Real
> > ones. Ones that are much more effective than not getting to play with • LEGO.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean that its a requirement? Required by what law of
> > nature?
> >
> > > That's not me. That is the way it is. Sometimes you have to do things
> > > you don't want to do. Not everything is this world is fun.
> >
> > Why is that? Why must you do things you don't like? I sometimes choose • to do
> > things that aren't constant fun...like vacuuming the family room rug, • which I'm
> > supposed to be doing right now ;-) But the fact of the mater is that it's • an
> > option. And if I choose not to, then I'll have to look at the tufts of • white
> > cat fur and bits of leaf matter that are all over. So, for me, and only I • get
> > to decide, the payoff for doing the task is an overal positive. That is • how we
> > all make all of our decisions.
> >
> > > > > they will learn that 1. Mom and dad have authority
> > > >
> > > > And eventually, I hope, they'll wonder why?
> > >
> > > They already know why, and they accept it, and they appreciate it. They • *know*
> > > that we love them and want what's best for them. They *know* that we • aren't
> > > perfect. They *know* that we don't have all of the answers. They *know* • it
> > > because we *tell* them. And they respect us for it.
> >
> > So you think that your kids wouldn't have figured out that you love them • or
> > that you don't have all the answers without being told? Come on John. • And I'm
> > sure they really do know why you have authority too. It is really because • you
> > don't trust them and are willing to use your might to enforce your will on
> > their life.
> >
> > > > > hopefully 4. Mom and dad know what is best for me and I will obey them
> > > >
> > > > How in the f...heck...do you think they would learn that from your
> > > > micromangemet antics? For that matter, how could it possibly be true?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure, but it is.
> >
> > Well, I hope to raise kids who know that _they_ know what's best for them. • So
> > that they won't have to look to someone else for such information. Old • habits
> > are hard to break.
> >
> > > > Control is the issue that I am disputing. You advocate the improper • control
> > > > of other humans merely because of a fluke of genetic relationship.
> > >
> > > To deny the sense of family negates probably the most powerful emotional • bond
> > > humans experience. I'm sorry I used the term "little people" because • they are
> > > children, and they *are* your children, in the sense that you created • them and
> > you
> > > are responsible for them. "Fluke of genetic relationship" is laughable.
> >
> > Oh, but I'm not denying the sense of family. But I believe that family • comes
> > from living relationships. Not phylogenetic relatedness. I have an • associate
> > who was deeply emotionally abused. She has no real family. I know a guy • who
> > was adopted and has much stronger bonds than most seem to with his family. • And
> > I know that I loved a man with whom I was a room mate in a way that • approaches
> > the way I love my wife. We were best friends. The fact that it was a non
> > sexual relationship does not detract from the depth of feeling that was
> > present. He and I could have formed a family.
> >
> > > > > > If you behave, they do too.
> > > > >
> > > > > ??
> > > >
> > > > What didn't you understand?
> > >
> > > lol Believe me now and hear me later, there is no such correlation!
> >
> > Can you support that assertion? At all? I have such strong support
> > from my personal experiences, that I find your negation ludicrous. When I • knew
> > 'bad' kids, it was because their parents were bad. Hell, when I _was_ a • bad
> > kid, it was because my parents were bad. I'm not shifting blame here...I • want
> > it all for myself, but my observations stand.
> >
> > > > Both. Most often dad. He recently started calling me daddy which he • has
> > never
> > > > done before. I'm interested in why.
> > >
> > > Because kids need a daddy. They don't need an adult friend.
> >
> > I disagree. I think adult friends is what they need most. They certainly
> > don't need masters.
> >
> > > I would think it *very* odd if my kids called me by my first name.
> > > It would probably strike them as odd, too. It would actually bother me.
> >
> > Of course it would. First, y'all are unused to it. Anything that you'r • not
> > used it is odd. Second, it would imply a degree of equality that you are
> > clearly not comfortable with. One of the things that I don't like at my • boy's
> > school is that they call the teachers using the honorifics, Miss, Mrs, • etc. but
> > the teachers call the kids by first name. What's up with that?
> >
> > I know that's how it was in my schools, but I thought we'd made it out of • the
> > social stone age by now. At his school in Missouri, they all used first • names.
> >
> > > > > No, sometimes they are just too lazy to. They don't want to be made • to
> > > > > because that would require work.
> > > >
> > > > Not kids who were raised with the freedom to follow good examples.
> > >
> > > I don't care how one was raised-- everybody gets lazy sometime.
> >
> > Sure...like debating instead of vacuuming...but sometimes it's OK. It's • their
> > life. AND, I still assert, that kids given good examples, mostly follow • good
> > examples.
> >
> > > > > Kids need special treatment. They are not adults, and they shouldn't
> > > > > be treated as such.
> > > >
> > > > Kids are small people. Adults are big people. The main difference is • size.
> > >
> > > Nope. intellect.
> > >
> > > > The next main difference is intellect: kids are smarter, and adults • have
> > > > more experience.
> > >
> > > Nope. Adults are smarter AND have more experience.
> >
> > You are using a definition of intelligence other than the norm. I • acknowledge
> > that it is a big fuzzy term that can include a whole slew of
> > sub-characteristics, but in all normally accepted ways, kids are simply
> > smarter. If you test IQ of a person across their life, they will tend to • drop
> > in IQ. If you measure the speed at which a five year old, a thirteen year • old,
> > and a thirty year old absorb new information, you will find a clear • inverse
> > correllation.
> >
> > Kids are smarter.
> >
> > > > Kids want the same things that adults want.
> > >
> > > Nope. Kids (mostly) want happiness, adults (should) want meaning.
> >
> > Kids derive happiness from a variety of things. Meaning, in the sense • that I
> > think you mean it, is not typically one of them. Adults derive their • happiness
> > from a variety of things, and the adults that we respect do include • 'meaning'
> > in that list of things. But in both cases, humans seek happiness. I • derive
> > happiness from learning stuff. Others don't. That means that I should • learn
> > more stuff than those others. So what?
> >
> > > > When you give them the freedom, they know what they need.
> > >
> > > Merely because one has freedom doesn't follow that one will attain wisdom • to
> > > know what they need.
> >
> > Everyone already knows what they need. Wisdom teaches us various ways to • reach
> > need fulfilment, and more importantly, that putting off need fulfillment • can be
> > used to reach greater levels of fulfillment in the future. But they still • know
> > what they need.
> >
> > > > Just because our corrupt legal system give you that authority, doesn't • mean
> > > > that it is "right" to exercise it. When it was legal to own dark • people, it
> > > > was still evil to do so. Now it is still legal to own little people, • and
> > it's
> > > > just as wrong to do so.
> > >
> > > No. Parental rights are denied all the time. Children are not • considered
> > > property in the eyes of the law. Parents are guardians, not slave • owners.
> >
> > Then why do parents get to force children to spend their time (the most
> > precious of all resources) in certain ways?
> >
> > > > > I think you will run into problems as your son
> > > > > matures if you treat him truly as your equal and friend, and not your • son.
> > > >
> > > > I'm treating him as my equal, my friend, and my son. Just not my • inferior,
> > > > or my slave.
> > >
> > > Intellectual equal? Explain to me this: how is treating your son as a • friend
> > > and treating him as a son different.
> >
> > That depends on your precepts. To me, they are not different. Son's are
> > friends. I'm not sure that answers what you wanted. If not, please • clarify.
> >
> > > I'm curious, and hope I'm not getting too personal-- were you not very • close
> > > to your dad? Did you grow up with a dad? I think your views on • parenthood
> > > are stemming a lot from the way you were brought up.
> >
> > I would assume that all of our views stem from the way we are brought up.
> >
> > Prior to adolesence, I was very close to both parents. My father was an
> > authoritarian (and doesn't approve of my philosophy ;-). When I was a • teen, we
> > had conflicts, but I think they were run of the mill interactions. No • physical
> > fights, for instance. I decided that living with them was unbearable at
> > nineteen and left. I talk and email with them frequently, and visit them • a
> > couple or three times a year. (I'm 1100 miles away now, so it's harder to
> > visit, and was much more frequent when I was only 100 miles away.)
> >
> > If you want me to say that I'm bitter about being his slave, I'm not. I
> > believe that he (they) handled their parental responsibilities as well as • they
> > knew how. They made mistakes. They did much better than either of their • sets
> > of parents did. I am confounded though, by how they can still assert that
> > simultaneously telling kids that violence is not appropriate, and spanking • for
> > discipline, is appropriate. That's just obviously ridiculous.
> >
> > Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
