Today's child abuse intervention: Just speaking the truth.

[Jose Perez]

I am getting better at intervening in cases of child abuse in public and working out what constitues a productive intervention.

Today a mother was forcing her toddler son against his will to sit in the buggy at a cafe next to me as they were leaving together with father and sibling. Without hesitation I said: "excuse me, you are really forcing your child". She explained that he has to be sitting there in order to get in the car, to which I replied that he can also walk to the car, for example, and that he clearly doesn't want to do what she was telling him. She then uttered some more nonsense, to which I stood and walked away with a disapproving face; I did not want to witness the very sad spectacle.

I think the simple act of being a conscious observer and pointing out what is happening makes for an excellent intervention. Regardless of the response and excuses you get from the parents you can never go wrong by simply pointing out what is happening, which is very powerful in the light that it happens in public.

[tasmlab]

I applaud your willingness to chirp up and it is probably a good thing overall for people to publicly highlight abuse.

 

Just reading your description, though, this sounds pretty routine unless it was particularly more violent than you describe.  Toddlers ages 1.5 to about five or so have the 'terrible twos', meaning they can grow really frustrated with instructions.  As a parent, you find yourself trying to take the knife away from the two year old and the kid will freak out no matter how nicely you remove said knife.  It resembles a hostile situation, but isn't.  Same with putting a kid in a stroller to navigate a parking lot or busy street area.  You often have to insist that the child be strapped in for its safety - the kid screams and it looks hostile, but is necessary.

Obviously if hitting or yelling or insulting during the interaction, I'd be worried.  But what you write seems like regular safety/terrible two stuff.  The interaction would be different if the child was in latency.

We had to do this yesterday with my two year old.  We're walking along a roadside, she doesn't want to ride in the stroller, she won't hold hands and she's persistently walking into the street.  Into the stroller she goes in full resistance, strapped in.  Live baby > frustrated baby.

[Jose Perez]

 

Just reading your description, though, this sounds pretty routine unless it was particularly more violent than you describe.

 

I said in the description that the child could walk to the car. The mother could have respected his wish to not get in the buggy at least until they got in the car. Nonsense. It was just a matter of parental whim and domination, as it is 99% of the times, no wonder the children pick tantrums when they are not allowed the same behaviour.

 

Toddlers ages 1.5 to about five or so have the 'terrible twos', meaning they can grow really frustrated with instructions.  

 

Do you think the 'terrible twos' is some kind of genetic issue with children? This doesn't sound very philosophical. Are you not familiar with

on the "terrible" twos and the nature of these conflicts?. As a rule of thumb, it's good to start from the hypothesis that the fault is with the parents, and that the child's reasons for having a tantrum are based on the principles that she is learning from their own behaviour, not in whim or the specificity of the situation.

 

[Jose Perez]

Another thing that was happening is the child crying: "not the right seat! not the right seat!", which he has no doubt heard from somewhere... As I said, it's all about principles.

[MysterionMuffles]

I developed this theory of the terrible twos and it's just a theory so take it for what it's worth. I'll state it before I watch the video to see if it matches what Stef says. 

To my understanding, the age of two is when children begin to exercise their assertiveness. They begin learning that they are separate from their parents as an individual. Depending not on how many, rather how forcefully a parent has told them "no," that willreturn ten fold when a parent disrupts the child's assertiveness development--simply by not respecting their preferences. When their need to be assertive is not fulfilled that's when tantrums appear. I also think tantrums don't exist in a child unless they have seen their parents exert negative emotions in an immature way to either their partners or with their children.

does this sound plausible, completely way off or right on the money?

 

[tasmlab]

 

I developed this theory of the terrible twos and it's just a theory so take it for what it's worth. I'll state it before I watch the video to see if it matches what Stef says. 

To my understanding, the age of two is when children begin to exercise their assertiveness. They begin learning that they are separate from their parents as an individual. Depending not on how many, rather how forcefully a parent has told them "no," that willreturn ten fold when a parent disrupts the child's assertiveness development--simply by not respecting their preferences. When their need to be assertive is not fulfilled that's when tantrums appear. I also think tantrums don't exist in a child unless they have seen their parents exert negative emotions in an immature way to either their partners or with their children.

does this sound plausible, completely way off or right on the money?

 

 

Hi Morse Code Studders and Joesito,

I'll look forward to watching Stef's video (I'm listening in order, currently on 502 somewhere in 2007), thanks for the recommendation.

My personal experience* with the terrible twos, which I use as short hand for this developmental time (I don't think it is genetic or philosophical), is that babies pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying.  As they learn other things, such as a few words and assertiveness, they still fall back to crying in a heartbeat with any frustration with a disproportionate reaction.

As a parent I can with all of the sweetness, friendliness, respect, maturity, philosophy, intelligence, patience, understanding, and kindness insist that they don't do something for their own safety and this happens all the time.  E.g., Please put down the sissors, don't climb this tall cement wall, don't walk into the street, you can't put a log on the fireplace, put down that shard of broken glass, don't chew on the marble, get the knife out of your mouth, don't wrap the curtain cord around your neck, don't put the plastic bag over your head, don't drink the dish soap, don't touch the dead animal, get in the buggy before we navigate the busy parking lot, etc. and it will elicit a fairly hysterical fit of crying for a minute.

What you both suggest about the parents' domination/immaturity/power is likely true in a lot of circumstances and for a lot of parents, but a lot of times it's important to teach and prevent children from doing bad things and it results in dissatisfaction from the child.

I'm all in for peaceful parenting, but it would be a disservice to the child to not teach them even the basics of safely navigating life at fear that they may get upset sometimes.

Please feel free to critique my handling of my daughter roadside (per my first post).  You have the anonymity of the internet and I'll be an absolute polite pussy cat in my defense. Joesieto can practice his parenting activism!

Peace!

* I have a 2, 5 and 7 year olds.  I've been actively dealing with this developmental age actively, every single day, and with multiple kids for six years running. 

[Jose Perez]

tasmlab, you are not addressing my point that the child in my case was not in danger and that the mother was making up excuses to put him in the buggy. Your sarcastic referrals to your children in situations of danger, and your ignoring this point do not help your credibility.

 

My personal experience* with the terrible twos, which I use as short hand for this developmental time (I don't think it is genetic or philosophical), is that babies pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying.  As they learn other things, such as a few words and assertiveness, they still fall back to crying in a heartbeat with any frustration with a disproportionate reaction.

 

If what you gather from your extensive personal experience with your children is that they "pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying" you clearly do not have much empathy for them and are yourself crying this completely subjective, anti-philosophical and self-serving argument.

Your children cry because you do not care to read what they're trying to tell you, as you would rather attribute fault to a dependent and cognitively inferior person than to yourself.

 

As a parent I can with all of the sweetness, friendliness, respect, maturity, philosophy, intelligence, patience, understanding, and kindness insist that they don't do something for their own safety and this happens all the time.  E.g., Please put down the sissors, don't climb this tall cement wall, don't walk into the street, you can't put a log on the fireplace, put down that shard of broken glass, don't chew on the marble, get the knife out of your mouth, don't wrap the curtain cord around your neck, don't put the plastic bag over your head, don't drink the dish soap, don't touch the dead animal, get in the buggy before we navigate the busy parking lot, etc. and it will elicit a fairly hysterical fit of crying for a minute.

 

You can keep all your sarcasm when talking about people whose low cognitive level puts them in dangerous situations. It's not funny and you're certainly not philosophical or understanding if you do not prevent these situations in the first place, as someone with a higher understanding of the environment that you yourself are putting your children into.

 

I'm all in for peaceful parenting, but it would be a disservice to the child to not teach them even the basics of safely navigating life at fear that they may get upset sometimes.

 

You can say you are for whatever you want. You cannot teach the basics of safety – or anything – to anyone by strapping them or causing them to have a fit. All you're doing is teaching them to hate you and fear you and your punishment as a primary reason to avoid dangerous stuff. This being the reason, you have actually planted the seeds for them to seek further danger in the future.

Make no mistake what your children are crying about. Your children cry for the same reason anyone would: because they are in a very sad situation indeed. It's up to you to change it, and I recommend that you do before your children have to do it for you once they have learned what's going on.

[MysterionMuffles]

Joesito, do you recognize that you may be using an ad hominem attack on tasmlab? I don't feel you responded with much reason or understanding, what I do feel is though, you happen to have a strong reaction to his posts.

tasmlab I can agree with you that despite all efforts, a baby's last resort to communicate their needs is by crying. But I dont think it happens more often than just a simple whining fit if the child has been in a peaceful environment for the most part. Much like Joesito I do feel a bit offended by you list of dangerous examples. I really hope for your sake that you were being sarcastic and just exaggeratijg. Because if your kids are putting sharp knives and their mouths or tying curtain cords around their necks, Im not sure if youre in the right position to talk safety if you havent provided the most basic of safety by having minimized the dangers in yourbimmediate enviroment. If however, those drastic things have never happened to your children, why did you feel the need to make such drastic examples? Was your intention to evoke a reaction or something else entirely?

[Jose Perez]

Morse, please tell me how and where I am not being rational? Ad hominem? 

tasmlab bias, ignores, is sarcastic and says "peace!"... It's clearly him who is having an inappropriate emotional reaction. Strong? Why is a strong reaction about child abuse inappropriate for you?

[ribuck]

As a parent, you find yourself trying to take the knife away from the two year old and the kid will freak out...

You don't need to take knives from toddlers. The kid will lose interest in a minute and put the knife down, provided you haven't drawn attention to it.

If you can't wait a minute, just give the child something that requires two hands to hold. The child will put the knife down without even realising.

Or just don't worry about it, like in most parts of the tropics:

http://cdn-3-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4067616_4340794_81141902_Web_2/0_0_591d84d3c3c6323be6ea4f17ace8ddbe_1

[Jose Perez]

Ribuck, excellent point. But this is not about the knife, I hope you realise, but about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power. Indeed, in the jungle they do other things to children, and they have a good reason for them to be skilled with the knife:

[ribuck]

this is ... about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed. But wow, what hard work it must have been raising his three children if he escalated every safety issue into a conflict!

When our kids were toddlers, we let them play with small knives. We gave them some balsa wood so that they could do something constructive with the knives, rather than (for example) slashing the upholstery. If they cut themselves, it teaches them that (a) knives are sharp, and (b) their parents were wise and helpful when telling them that knives can cut skin and it will hurt. It's better for them to learn about dangerous situations, rather than being protected from dangerous situations until they are in control of really dangerous things like guns or cars or explosives.

Please put down the sissors, don't climb this tall cement wall, don't
walk into the street, you can't put a log on the fireplace, put down
that shard of broken glass, don't chew on the marble, get the knife out
of your mouth, don't wrap the curtain cord around your neck, don't put
the plastic bag over your head, don't drink the dish soap, don't touch
the dead animal, get in the buggy before we navigate the busy parking
lot, etc. and it will elicit a fairly hysterical fit of crying for a
minute.

Scissors: Let them play with scissors. Tell them that scissors are sharp and can cut and hurt. Give them stuff to cut. Let them discover that scissors can hurt. Make sure you have an old pair of scissors so that they can try to cut rocks and wood and metal. I don't think either of our two children ever drew blood with scissors of knives (unlike my own childhood; I was always getting cut).

Climbing tall walls: Let them climb walls. If you let them start early, they will start with small walls, and will have discovered the consequences of falling before they move on to tall walls. The top of a wall is an empowering place for a child to be. Let them climb trees. Explain how they should keep three out of four limbs in contact with the tree at all times. Explain how they must work out how they are going to get down, before they go up. I did need to rescue my 4-year-old from the top of a tree that she couldn't climb down. Now both children can climb up to their treehouse without a ladder, and love to climb over the roof of our house (much to the consternation of our neighbors).

Walking into the street: In a hazardous place like a supermarket car park, we put the children in their backpack-style child carriers. They loved riding up high on our backs. It's great for the parents too, being able to chat freely with the child while going places. I would recommend a child-carrying backpack to all able-bodied parents. From an early age our children had played in toy ride-on cars, so they soon learned that collisions were painful. By the age of three they understood that if you ran into the street and a car hit you, you would be squashed. So they never ran into the street. If you shout "don't run into the street" while chasing after the child, it turns it into a game and of course the child runs away from you into the street. So don't do that. Most of the time, a child's natural instinct is to stay close to the parent when going places.

Putting logs onto the fireplace: We allowed that, although I don't think they wanted to do that as toddlers, I think it was from about 4 onwards, when they were wanting to do things that adults do. But when they were 2, we were already having campfires in the garden and letting them toast marshmallows. And if they get a small burn, despite our warnings, they learn that fires can burn. But I don't think they ever burned themselves, although I often burned myself as a child. We had a designated part of the garden where they were allowed to gather leaves and twigs and light their own fires. They had to ask for the matches though; we always kept those hidden and out of reach.

I could go on through the list, but there's not much point. Some of the things I would have taken immediate action about. For example, I would immediately take the marble out of the child's mouth. But I guess since my wife and I were generally allowing our toddlers to experience the world, they were happy enough to let us occasionally act first and explain later. We never thought we could "teach" by "forbidding" though.

[tasmlab]

Hi Joseito and Morse,

This is getting strangely hot. I'm not trying to be devisive nor elusive nor sarcastic.

I wasn't there at the cafe and didn't survey the parking lot or street side, so I really don't know the relative safety.  This said, a stroller is a dandy way to safely transport a child in areas where there are other cars driving around, especially given that very young children may not want to hold hands and that parents usually are carrying a bunch of stuff with them and in your situation, would've had to use their hands to push the buggy.  I'm having a hard time imaging what kind of toddlers show reliably safe behaviors where cars are parked.

Just getting kids out of a restaurant is a trial.

The entirety of my safety list is not sarcastic and is all routine.  In my home we stock sissors, have a cement wall, have access to a street, put wood in our fireplace, occasionally break a glass, have small toys (like marbles), use knifes when eating, have curtains with cords on them, get plastic bags from the grocery store, use dish soap, occasionally have a bird die in our yard, and use a stroller when going through parking lots.

These safety issues, like my example of walking with my children roadside and my toddler wanting to wander into the street, don't come with a lot of negotiating time.  We have dozens of interactions daily where we can cooperate, communicate, dissagree, educate, etc. but when the child is walking into the street you don't take 10 minutes to understand her perspective, you pick her the hell up as soon as you can, crying be damned, because you don't want her to get hit by a car.

Going back to my first post, I was only suggesting that not all crying and parental behavior is homogenous.  The parent may have been needlessly domineering towards the child, or, perhaps needed to safely navigate a parking lot.  One is worth criticism, the other is plain necessity.

Anyways, good luck with your activism/street campaign.  I doubt you'll experience much gratitude.  I'd probably recommend starting with really clear-cut targets, like when there is hitting or yelling.

[Jose Perez]

 

this is ... about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed.

 

How do you know? I'd be interested to hear your arguments for your certainty; I have provided enough here for the opposite. Do you think the parent in the example of this thread was also trying to protect the child's safety? Please bear in mind that that is what tasmlab was answering to.

I think your practical advices are fantastic, but good parenting is only possible through the parent's self knowledge and willingness to explore his motivations objectively. You yourself bring up yet another argument that this is not the case:

 

But wow, what hard work it must have been raising his three children if he escalated every safety issue into a conflict!

 

 

 

[Jose Perez]

tasmlab, I believe you are not being elusive nor sarcastic as much as anyone would believe that my intervention is "activism/street campaign". Go manage your anxiety in church or similar, not on a philosophy forum.

[tasmlab]

 

this is ... about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed. But wow, what hard work it must have been raising his three children if he escalated every safety issue into a conflict!

When our kids were toddlers, we let them play with small knives. We gave them some balsa wood so that they could do something constructive with the knives, rather than (for example) slashing the upholstery. If they cut themselves, it teaches them that (a) knives are sharp, and (b) their parents were wise and helpful when telling them that knives can cut skin and it will hurt. It's better for them to learn about dangerous situations, rather than being protected from dangerous situations until they are in control of really dangerous things like guns or cars or explosives.

Please put down the sissors, don't climb this tall cement wall, don't
walk into the street, you can't put a log on the fireplace, put down
that shard of broken glass, don't chew on the marble, get the knife out
of your mouth, don't wrap the curtain cord around your neck, don't put
the plastic bag over your head, don't drink the dish soap, don't touch
the dead animal, get in the buggy before we navigate the busy parking
lot, etc. and it will elicit a fairly hysterical fit of crying for a
minute.

Scissors: Let them play with scissors. Tell them that scissors are sharp and can cut and hurt. Give them stuff to cut. Let them discover that scissors can hurt. Make sure you have an old pair of scissors so that they can try to cut rocks and wood and metal. I don't think either of our two children ever drew blood with scissors of knives (unlike my own childhood; I was always getting cut).

Climbing tall walls: Let them climb walls. If you let them start early, they will start with small walls, and will have discovered the consequences of falling before they move on to tall walls. The top of a wall is an empowering place for a child to be. Let them climb trees. Explain how they should keep three out of four limbs in contact with the tree at all times. Explain how they must work out how they are going to get down, before they go up. I did need to rescue my 4-year-old from the top of a tree that she couldn't climb down. Now both children can climb up to their treehouse without a ladder, and love to climb over the roof of our house (much to the consternation of our neighbors).

Walking into the street: In a hazardous place like a supermarket car park, we put the children in their backpack-style child carriers. They loved riding up high on our backs. It's great for the parents too, being able to chat freely with the child while going places. I would recommend a child-carrying backpack to all able-bodied parents. From an early age our children had played in toy ride-on cars, so they soon learned that collisions were painful. By the age of three they understood that if you ran into the street and a car hit you, you would be squashed. So they never ran into the street. If you shout "don't run into the street" while chasing after the child, it turns it into a game and of course the child runs away from you into the street. So don't do that. Most of the time, a child's natural instinct is to stay close to the parent when going places.

Putting logs onto the fireplace: We allowed that, although I don't think they wanted to do that as toddlers, I think it was from about 4 onwards, when they were wanting to do things that adults do. But when they were 2, we were already having campfires in the garden and letting them toast marshmallows. And if they get a small burn, despite our warnings, they learn that fires can burn. But I don't think they ever burned themselves, although I often burned myself as a child. We had a designated part of the garden where they were allowed to gather leaves and twigs and light their own fires. They had to ask for the matches though; we always kept those hidden and out of reach.

I could go on through the list, but there's not much point. Some of the things I would have taken immediate action about. For example, I would immediately take the marble out of the child's mouth. But I guess since my wife and I were generally allowing our toddlers to experience the world, they were happy enough to let us occasionally act first and explain later. We never thought we could "teach" by "forbidding" though.

 

 

Hi Rlbuck,

My wife and I do pretty much the same. For just sheer practicallity we let the older kids do things that we don't let the baby do.  That's why the sissors are out, the five year old is learing how to use them, the two year old just doesn't have the motor skills yet.  

I think a lot of points in this whole discussion are looking exagerated. For example, I'll let my five year old put a log on the fire.  The two year old wants to do the same and picks up an oversized log. I can gently say "no, let daddy do that" to the two year old and if she's in a mood she'll cry for a second.  I don't consider this some grand conflict.

tasmlab, I believe you are not being elusive nor sarcastic as much as anyone would believe that my intervention is "activism/street campaign". Go manage your anxiety in church or similar, not on a philosophy forum.

Kitty likes to scratch! Thanks for the free analysis of my family, Joesito.  It was downright ferocious.

 

[ribuck]

... I'll let my five year old put a log on the fire.  The two year old wants to do the same and picks up an oversized log. I can gently say "no, let daddy do that" to the two year old and if she's in a mood she'll cry for a second.

But why does she cry? She cries because her self-esteem is being squelched. She sees that daddy can fuel the fire, and that the five-year-old can fuel the fire, but she is not considered good enough.

The alternative approach is to say "sure, let daddy help you with that". Then the two of you together pick up the oversized log and place it in the fire (with you guiding it, of course, and protecting her). She grins broadly with pride, beams lovingly at you, and the two of you have a lovely bonding moment.

[ribuck]

 

 

this is ... about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed.

 

How do you know? I'd be interested to hear your arguments for your certainty

You're right to call me out on the certainty. I used the words "I'm sure" as a loose figure of speech rather than to represent 100% certainty. Here's why I think it's likely that tasmlab's motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed, as opposed to teaching the child not to trust its senses and to respect authority.

1. The children look happy and content in tasmlab's profile picture, and the body language suggests a positive parent-child relationship.

2. The safety measures that tasmlab might sometimes impose by force are standard ones that are repeatedly emphasized to parents in parenting classes, books, and in the media. The implied message is that the parents should do whatever it takes to remove these safety threats. The parents who internalise that message are motivated by the perceived wellbeing of the child.

3. I don't see any evidence in tasmlab's other posts that his motivation is to stunt his children emotionally.

So let's say I'm 99.9% certain rather than 100% "sure".

Do you think the parent in the example of this thread was also trying to protect the child's safety?

There's not a huge amount of information given, but the impression I got was that the parent's concern was not just for the safety of the child, but also to maximise the convenience for the parent.

Go manage your anxiety in church or similar, not on a philosophy forum.

That was a surprising thing to say to tasmlab. Churches can be quite good at increasing anxiety.

[MysterionMuffles]

Whoa ridbuck your logic rocks! Sharp stuff I am sceptical of trusting in the hands of my niece but I'm with you on letting them climb stuff. If they fall they fall and they'll decide if they ever want to again.

 

[Jose Perez]

 

You're right to call me out on the certainty. I used the words "I'm sure" as a loose figure of speech rather than to represent 100% certainty.

 

Here's why I think it's likely that tasmlab's motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed, as opposed to teaching the child not to trust its senses and to respect authority.

1. The children look happy and content in tasmlab's profile picture, and the body language suggests a positive parent-child relationship.

 

You don't seem to be aware of the factor that profile pictures are the result of conscious choice and selection, and therefore do not make very good evidence. I'd say that's quite an important distinction, especially in the light that this is a site where the topic of peaceful parenting is central, and the user chooses to feature himself or herself with their kids having a jolly good time. As a rule of thumb, I am suspicious of anyone who has a profile picture like that on here – and if you notice they all kind of look the same. Conscious as it is, the contrivedness and obviousness of such pictures clearly still goes unnoticed for most.

I have also seen you interpret pictures about anarchy in a similar manner before and be drawn to thinking appearances make for philosophical arguments, so it's not surpising to me this is what you prioritise here.

 

2. The safety measures that tasmlab might sometimes impose by force are standard ones that are repeatedly emphasized to parents in parenting classes, books, and in the media. The implied message is that the parents should do whatever it takes to remove these safety threats. The parents who internalise that message are motivated by the perceived wellbeing of the child.

 

I don't know how it follows from internalising the general views on child raising that the parents' motivation is the child's wellbeing. Can you clarify? The whole idea of bad parenting is precisely to not admit to yourself or others that you are indeed motivated by domination, let alone put it in books or the media. Are you not familiar with the psychology of abusers? 

 

3. I don't see any evidence in tasmlab's other posts that his motivation is to stunt his children emotionally.

 

In my opinion the only evidence you need is here. Someone who is not honest in debate, who is sarcastic and biased about his own evidence, etc. and who mistrusts the only source of evidence he has about the original case (i.e. my reports) and takes the liberty to adapt it to his conclusions about it is clearly not interested in reason and evidence, but in defending something within himself that was attacked by my post and description of my intervention.

 

So let's say I'm 99.9% certain rather than 100% "sure".

 

A 0.1% difference in certainty doesn't seem like a good reason to bother with a response like this. So I would also put forward the proposition that, as a parent, you somehow identify with tasmlab in relation to this. You can convince me otherwise by simply refuting my arguments above.

 

Do you think the parent in the example of this thread was also trying to protect the child's safety?

There's not a huge amount of information given, but the impression I got was that the parent's concern was not just for the safety of the child, but also to maximise the convenience for the parent.

 

How does this answer my question? I said the child could walk to the car. The car was in fact parked over 100 m. away and within a pedestrian area (swimming pool complex). Again, it does not say a lot of your capacity to look at these cases objectively that you mistrust the only source of evidence you have.

 

Go manage your anxiety in church or similar, not on a philosophy forum.

That was a surprising thing to say to tasmlab. Churches can be quite good at increasing anxiety.

 

This has absolutely zero relevance to my point (I am calling him irrational) and, once more, doesn't say a lot about your taking all this very objectively. Besides, the idea of clearing your sins, redemption, etc. seems to have worked pretty good with irrational people's anxiety, abusers, warmongers...

 

 

[Wesley]

3. I don't see any evidence in tasmlab's other posts that his motivation is to stunt his children emotionally.

I do not wish to enter the debate (at least yet) and I have no opinion on who is right and who is wrong. However, this logically does not make sense to me.

If I am hurt by something my girlfriend does, I express the emotion and then we analyze whether it was her or it was be through a process of curious discovery. It is generally a given that her intention was not to cause me harm, however intentions have no proof. The fact was that I was hurt and that she did something. We then try to discover the real cause to rectify the situation and prevent future occurances.

I am very sure that he is loving and trying to do what he thinks is best and is not intending to harm the child considering he is on FDR and trying to talk about these issues. However, the intent isn't very relevant or provable. The facts are the chance of danger in a given situation and the feelings of the child and how the situation is dealt with.The situations are complex and there are many factors. Negative experiences should be explored to find the real cause and then the causes of negative experiences should be minimized just the same as safety is minimized. As was explained, it is rarely an either-or and the child can often be allowed to explore or help in a safe way.

Intent is irrelevant. This isn't the point here, but as an extreme case, I am sure that most parents who beat the shit out of their kids think it is what is best for the kids and do not intend to cause them harm (or think that a little harn will avoid greater harm). Communists think that they economic theories sare the best for people, but they cause the deaths of millions.Intent is not how I judge these ideas, nor how I judge any idea (or at least I attempt to not judge on this basis- work in progress).

[ribuck]

Joseito, in my experience it rarely leads to edification when a discussion starts focusing on tedious minutae, so I'm not going to pursue it.

[Jose Perez]

well, Ribuck, I hate to tell you, but you are the one that brought the tedious minutiae and the 99.9% certainty in order to support your friends. Believe me, you would look a lot better responding to the reasoned arguments and evidence that people present to you.

[ribuck]

Intent is irrelevant.

Sure, I agree. Intent is irrelevant to the philosophy and practise of peaceful parenting.

But if someone has claimed ill-intent by tasmlabs, and if I don't see evidence of that ill-intent, I think it's reasonable (and couteous to tasmlabs) to say so.

[tasmlab]

 

... I'll let my five year old put a log on the fire.  The two year old wants to do the same and picks up an oversized log. I can gently say "no, let daddy do that" to the two year old and if she's in a mood she'll cry for a second.

But why does she cry? She cries because her self-esteem is being squelched. She sees that daddy can fuel the fire, and that the five-year-old can fuel the fire, but she is not considered good enough.

The alternative approach is to say "sure, let daddy help you with that". Then the two of you together pick up the oversized log and place it in the fire (with you guiding it, of course, and protecting her). She grins broadly with pride, beams lovingly at you, and the two of you have a lovely bonding moment.

 

 

I think that's a perfectly delightful approach and I agree.  I have to admit, I don't always have the luxury of thinking something like that through when managing six little hands by the fire.  I probably make sub-optimal plays every day.  It's easier to do in hindsight than when caught in the moment of the baby approaching the fire.

 

[Jose Perez]

 

Intent is irrelevant. This isn't the point here, but as an extreme case, I am sure that most parents who beat the shit out of their kids think it is what is best for the kids and do not intend to cause them harm (or think that a little harn will avoid greater harm). Communists think that they economic theories sare the best for people, but they cause the deaths of millions.Intent is not how I judge these ideas, nor how I judge any idea (or at least I attempt to not judge on this basis- work in progress).

 

You seem very confused. Intent is precisely what allows you to judge those people and their actions as good or bad. If people were not consciously choosing they would be forever excused.

The whole idea of moral rational philosophy is to have a standard for determining these things objectively. So people's own reports on their intentions have very very little value, as do the reports and justifications of statists, and bad people through the ages.

Without choice or consciousness there is no philosophy.

[Jose Perez]

 

Intent is irrelevant.

Sure, I agree. Intent is irrelevant to the philosophy and practise of peaceful parenting.

But if someone has claimed ill-intent by tasmlabs, and if I don't see evidence of that ill-intent, I think it's reasonable (and couteous to tasmlabs) to say so.

 

How funny: "Intent is relevant when someone claims ill-intent, but irrelevant when being refuted, when it becomes minutiae". 

[emilia]

tasmlab, I really recommend you skip forward in the podcasts to the time that Stefs daughter was born. There is so much evidence starting from there that is relevant to this thread. For example, Isabella did not cry almost at all. And I am pretty sure that she didn't have the terrible twos either, although i can't remember that for sure and could't find evidence just now. Someone could back me up on this if they remember? I also remember Stef saying that he had no trouble saying no to Isabella, because she was so happy and free almost all the time, that she didn't mind it at all, when in some rare occasions she was not allowed to do something she wanted.

[tasmlab]

 

tasmlab, I really recommend you skip forward in the podcasts to the time that Stefs daughter was born. There is so much evidence starting from there that is relevant to this thread. For example, Isabella did not cry almost at all. And I am pretty sure that she didn't have the terrible twos either, although i can't remember that for sure and could't find evidence just now. Someone could back me up on this if they remember? I also remember Stef saying that he had no trouble saying no to Isabella, because she was so happy and free almost all the time, that she didn't mind it at all, when in some rare occasions she was not allowed to do something she wanted.

 

I am looking forward to hearing Stef's take on parenting after his daughter is born.  My kids don't cry much and we haven't had rapacious terrible twos, but then I do a lot of the same things Stef does and generally share the majority of his beliefs.

[tasmlab]

 

 

... I'll let my five year old put a log on the fire.  The two year old wants to do the same and picks up an oversized log. I can gently say "no, let daddy do that" to the two year old and if she's in a mood she'll cry for a second.

But why does she cry? She cries because her self-esteem is being squelched. She sees that daddy can fuel the fire, and that the five-year-old can fuel the fire, but she is not considered good enough.

The alternative approach is to say "sure, let daddy help you with that". Then the two of you together pick up the oversized log and place it in the fire (with you guiding it, of course, and protecting her). She grins broadly with pride, beams lovingly at you, and the two of you have a lovely bonding moment.

 

I think that's a perfectly delightful approach and I agree.  I have to admit, I don't always have the luxury of thinking something like that through when managing six little hands by the fire.  I probably make sub-optimal plays every day.  It's easier to do in hindsight than when caught in the moment of the baby approaching the fire. 

 

 

 Rlbuck, you seem very thoughtful about parenting and describe good approaches.  How do you think the baby/firelog would play out if after I offered to help with that if she pulled away and suggested she would do it by herself?  Do I then have to fall back to a 'no' position?  

Secondly, I leave the room for a moment.  Does the two-year-old now beleive she has permission to put logs on the fire in my absence?  (we have a screen, we're not gone for a moment, etc., but let's say we don't even want her to try in the first place) 

[MysterionMuffles]

If you don't mind that I respond to that by asking this then I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Why wouldn't a two year old have the permission to pick up a log? If it's too heavy and she can't carry it, she'll learn from experience that she indeed needs help with it. If its light enough for her to lift but heavy enough to make it difficult for her to carry consistently, her strength will be put to the test and she can decide if she wants to continue. What problematic consequence do you think will happen or do you have a fear of happening that gives you some pause about it?

[Jose Perez]

 

tasmlab, I really recommend you skip forward in the podcasts to the time that Stefs daughter was born. There is so much evidence starting from there that is relevant to this thread. For example, Isabella did not cry almost at all. 

 

Thank you so much for providing this evidence, emilia, very relevant indeed. I'm only sorry that you're addressing someone who already disregarded similar evidence on the basis that he is "listening in sequence". I recommend you do not waste your time interacting with him – as I realise you might from the fact that he blatantly contradicts himself in his response to you:

 

My kids don't cry much and we haven't had rapacious terrible twos, 

 

 

My personal experience* with the terrible twos, which I use as short hand for this developmental time (I don't think it is genetic or philosophical), is that babies pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying.  As they learn other things, such as a few words and assertiveness, they still fall back to crying in a heartbeat with any frustration with a disproportionate reaction.

As a parent I can with all of the sweetness, friendliness, respect, maturity, philosophy, intelligence, patience, understanding, and kindness insist that they don't do something for their own safety and this happens all the time. 

 

[ribuck]

How do you think the baby/firelog would play out if after I offered to help with that if she pulled away and suggested she would do it by herself?  Do I then have to fall back to a 'no' position?

If you have the time and the patience, you can say "sure, no problem" and let her have a go at doing it herself. Obviously, you will hover close by in case she is about to get into a hazardous situation. When our children were younger (they're teenagers now), they would
sometimes reject our offers of help because they wanted to do something themselves. Sometimes they would succeed with an ambitious task that we had thought was beyond their ability. More often, they would abandon the task halfway and say "now you do it".

Secondly, I leave the room for a moment. Does the two-year-old now
beleive she has permission to put logs on the fire in my absence?

You can't expect a two-year-old to deduce things in the same way as an adult, so yes there is a risk that she will try to put logs on the fire in your absence. But there is also a risk if you previously said "no", because when you leave the room she might decide that she is now free to put the log on the fire. So you need to make the environment safe for her either way.

If a child perceives that you are thwarting their desires, it increases the incentive for them to be "naughty" (by your standards) when they think you're not watching. If a child perceives that you are "on their side" because you are always helping them to achieve their desires, they are more likely to respect your decision when you really do need to say "no".

A couple of other points. Is their mother around? If not, being a single parent makes it more difficult. Also, sometimes the older sibling will happily help to look after the safety of the younger one (yes, even at age 7) if they are given some encouragement and shown that they have your confidence.

[tasmlab]

 

How do you think the baby/firelog would play out if after I offered to help with that if she pulled away and suggested she would do it by herself?  Do I then have to fall back to a 'no' position?

If you have the time and the patience, you can say "sure, no problem" and let her have a go at doing it herself. Obviously, you will hover close by in case she is about to get into a hazardous situation. When our children were younger (they're teenagers now), they would
sometimes reject our offers of help because they wanted to do something themselves. Sometimes they would succeed with an ambitious task that we had thought was beyond their ability. More often, they would abandon the task halfway and say "now you do it".

Secondly, I leave the room for a moment. Does the two-year-old now
beleive she has permission to put logs on the fire in my absence?

You can't expect a two-year-old to deduce things in the same way as an adult, so yes there is a risk that she will try to put logs on the fire in your absence. But there is also a risk if you previously said "no", because when you leave the room she might decide that she is now free to put the log on the fire. So you need to make the environment safe for her either way.

If a child perceives that you are thwarting their desires, it increases the incentive for them to be "naughty" (by your standards) when they think you're not watching. If a child perceives that you are "on their side" because you are always helping them to achieve their desires, they are more likely to respect your decision when you really do need to say "no".

A couple of other points. Is their mother around? If not, being a single parent makes it more difficult. Also, sometimes the older sibling will happily help to look after the safety of the younger one (yes, even at age 7) if they are given some encouragement and shown that they have your confidence.

 

 

Thanks Rlbuck.  Our family is together almost always.  My wife is a full time mom and I work at home and the older kids are tasked with watching for the younger one.  I agree with what you say, it is largely consistent with what I beleive. 

Perhaps the sticking point might be how safety rules are delivered w/r/t whether they are helpful, nurturing interactions or bald expressions of domination and power.  If I explain to my daughter why I don't allow her to put the wood on the fire I'm helping, if its 'because I say so' it's power.  And you might point out (not to put words in your mouth) that there might be a better approach to the former which is more productive (fair?)

[tasmlab]

 

If you don't mind that I respond to that by asking this then I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Why wouldn't a two year old have the permission to pick up a log? If it's too heavy and she can't carry it, she'll learn from experience that she indeed needs help with it. If its light enough for her to lift but heavy enough to make it difficult for her to carry consistently, her strength will be put to the test and she can decide if she wants to continue. What problematic consequence do you think will happen or do you have a fear of happening that gives you some pause about it?

 

 

Hi Morse,

She is generally allowed to pick up logs, but their not really toys and they are heavy, so we discourage that just like we don't particularly like her picking up glass vases or stereo equipment.  The line of this discussion was mostly about the fire, which my family has in the livingroom in the fireplace and use during the winter.  The kids are fascinated by it and we make a big deal stacking the wood, taking turns lighting the fire with long matches and sometimes even roast marshmallows.  It's a big feature of our winter nights and weekends.  

This happened like twice: the baby sees the fun and picks up a log and approaches the blaze to put it on the fire, which is hot and can burn you etc.  We don't let any of the children add wood to the fire on their own and on every occasion have not let the two year old put wood on the fire.  She certainly will, if she wants, when she is older when I don't think she's going to fall into it.