Daniel Unplugged Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 A cop to someone driving a car: "You have to pull over" Real meaning: "If you do not pull over, we will follow you home, kick down your door, terrorise your family, assault you, kidnap you, and lock you in a cage" A teacher to a student: "You have to do your homework" Real meaning: "If you do not do your homework, you will held in detention, will be humiliated in front of your class tomorrow, will receive a failing grade, may be forced to spend another year in a prison like environment, and may be prevented from working in the job of your dreams." The IRS to a taxpayer: "You have to give us money" Real meaning: "If you do not give us money, we will kidnap you, lock you in a cage, and then take your money anyway, as well as some extra as punishment for not giving us your money when we asked nicely." A parent to a child: "You have to go to bed" Real meaning: "If you do not go to bed, I will pull your pants down and spank you repeatedly. Your cries for mercy will be ignored. You will still have to go to bed"
Sayo Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." Confucius (551–479 BC)
cab21 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 the owner of the road says to someone driving a car:"You have to pull over"Real meaning:you are breaching a contract and must face the consequences or contracts are meaningless. you are violating the rules of the road and being a danger to others. my responsibility to paying customers is to provide a safe environment and your actions are creating a unsafe environment. A teacher to a student:"You have to do your homework"Real meaning:i will stop teaching you if you don't do your homework, as you agreed that you would do, before i agreed to teach you. you have to do your homework if you want to progress and learn what i am trying to teach you. The bill collector to a bill payer"You have to give us money"Real meaning:you need to fulfill your end of the deal, or else you are violating the contract and initiating force against the company that agreed to give you a loan in exchange for you paying it back A parent to a child:"You have to go to bed"Real meaning:i'm choosing to look after your health, going to bed is good for your health, so you have to go to bed in order to get enough sleep to remain healthy. i'll help you in the process of going to bed so that you enjoy the experience and learn the importance of sleep for your health.
dsayers Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 A teacher to a student: "You have to do your homework"Real meaning:i will stop teaching you if you don't do your homework, as you agreed that you would do, before i agreed to teach you. you have to do your homework if you want to progress and learn what i am trying to teach you. I've never heard of a voluntary student teacher relationship. Even in regards to university, the student pays for access to the facility, not as a written contract to do any specific work. A parent to a child: "You have to go to bed"Real meaning:i'm choosing to look after your health, going to bed is good for your health, so you have to go to bed in order to get enough sleep to remain healthy. i'll help you in the process of going to bed so that you enjoy the experience and learn the importance of sleep for your health. The whole point of the thread is to reveal that "have to" in regards to behavior is a threat, the opposite of negotiation. Saying somebody has to do something is not the same as making the case to them in an attempt to convince them to do it.
Prairie Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 A parent to a child:"You have to go to bed"Real meaning:i'm choosing to look after your health, going to bed is good for your health, so you have to go to bed in order to get enough sleep to remain healthy. i'll help you in the process of going to bed so that you enjoy the experience and learn the importance of sleep for your health.I want you to be healthy. I believe that going to bed is good for your health. I also believe that your body is unable to tell you when you need to get to sleep. I don't care that you might be staying up because of unmet needs of yours that I haven't noticed or helped you with. I have decided to adopt a dictorial style of managing your health, because it's more convenient for me. Because I don't feel sure of my grounding, I'll state it as a command from on high rather than my own request for you to go to bed. I'll also neglect to mention that there are many reasons unrelated to your health that I am ordering you to go to bed. Since I never learned how to state my wants and work out something with the other person of how to get them met, I'm not able to model it for you or believe that you are capable of it. Tough luck kid. You have to go to bed now or I'm going to get mean and threatening.
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I've never heard of a voluntary student teacher relationship. Even in regards to university, the student pays for access to the facility, not as a written contract to do any specific work. i would think a voluntary relationship would be better if the person does not want to do homework, the person simply fails or gets kicked out of the class, and does not get a refund why should a teacher waste time with a person who does not even participate in the class? The whole point of the thread is to reveal that "have to" in regards to behavior is a threat, the opposite of negotiation. Saying somebody has to do something is not the same as making the case to them in an attempt to convince them to do it. have to is also just a cause and effect relationship if someone wants to climb a mountain, they have to climb up, there is no threat if the person does not climb up, the person simply won't climb to the top of the mountain that way it seems like a valid way to say someone has to do something as a attempt to convince it's one thing if a person says another has to do something, or the person will initate agression, thats a thread, and another if the person is just talking about consequences of not doing something or the consequences of doing something say someone says, "you have to stop getting drunk, or you will have to move out of my house" is there a threat there, or is a person just laying out the conditions for the voluntary relationship to work? I want you to be healthy. I believe that going to bed is good for your health. I also believe that your body is unable to tell you when you need to get to sleep. I don't care that you might be staying up because of unmet needs of yours that I haven't noticed or helped you with. I have decided to adopt a dictorial style of managing your health, because it's more convenient for me. Because I don't feel sure of my grounding, I'll state it as a command from on high rather than my own request for you to go to bed. I'll also neglect to mention that there are many reasons unrelated to your health that I am ordering you to go to bed. Since I never learned how to state my wants and work out something with the other person of how to get them met, I'm not able to model it for you or believe that you are capable of it. Tough luck kid. You have to go to bed now or I'm going to get mean and threatening. where did you get "or i am going to get mean and threatening" from? " you have to leave my room after Xpm" is this supposed to be a negotiation every time you want someone to leave your space? "i'm requesting you go to bed"
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 i would think a voluntary relationship would be better That goes without saying, but such a relationship wouldn't have any "have to"s in it. It seems to that the way you're talking about homework is assuming the existing model works or is the only arrangement. Even within such an assumption, the idea is flawed. If somebody doesn't do the homework, how interested are they in the material? How effective would one be, even with threats, trying to teach somebody that which they're not interested in? Wouldn't they reap the reward when they later lose out to somebody who had made more of an effort to learn in that field? have to is also just a cause and effect relationship I took care to specify behavior in order to preempt refutations based on laws of physics. " you have to leave my room after Xpm" is this supposed to be a negotiation every time you want someone to leave your space? "My room" and "your space" denote private property. When somebody sleeps is a characteristic of their body and time. You've accidentally argued against your position. I acknowledge that children particularly in the parent child relationship makes for a lot of grey areas in these matters. However, I don't think this at all detracts from the evaluation of "have to" being the opposite of making a convincing case. If it's of any use, I'm heavily biased against this sort of tactic. My father often speaks to people matter of factly when expressing opinions in an attempt to preempt scrutiny. Kind of like when people call commands backed by threats of violence laws. They do this so that people will not question it since you can't not be bound by gravity. Saying "have to" frames the conversation as if choice isn't present. If choice IS present and somebody is claiming it isn't there, they are acting contrary to your self-ownership. It is a threat, however minute and/or veiled in that moment.
Prairie Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 When someone says I have to do something, it's not clear what they mean. Often it's that their imagination only came up with one strategy to meet some needs, sometimes not even theirs. Or they have a need they want met and only see one way for it. Or there's someone else policing us and they want to let me know that I will be violating someone else's demands if I don't do what they say. say someone says, "you have to stop getting drunk, or you will have to move out of my house" is there a threat there, or is a person just laying out the conditions for the voluntary relationship to work?They are being dishonest by hiding that it's not an inevitable outcome like physics. Contrast: "If you get drunk one more time, I will demand that you move out of my house." This makes it clear that it's a voluntary decision on the part of the house owner. It also makes clearer that there are other possible responses, unlike "you will have to" hides.where did you get "or i am going to get mean and threatening" from?It comes with the territory when a parent tells their child that they "have to" do something." you have to leave my room after Xpm"is this supposed to be a negotiation every time you want someone to leave your space?"i'm requesting you go to bed"Please leave. I want you to leave. I'm uncomfortable with you here. I want to get to sleep soon so please leave.Many ways to communicate it and not be opaque.Translating have-to into choose-to-becauseThe Nonviolent Communication Process: A Synopsis (See 2. Denial of Responsibility)
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 That goes without saying, but such a relationship wouldn't have any "have to"s in it. It seems to that the way you're talking about homework is assuming the existing model works or is the only arrangement. Even within such an assumption, the idea is flawed. If somebody doesn't do the homework, how interested are they in the material? How effective would one be, even with threats, trying to teach somebody that which they're not interested in? Wouldn't they reap the reward when they later lose out to somebody who had made more of an effort to learn in that field? why would it not have any "have to"s? if someone is not interested in the material, why are they paying the person giving out the material? why would a teacher want to teach someone not interested in the material, when the teacher could instead go teach someone who is? i don't mean "have to" as a threat, just that it makes sense to discontinue if the person is not doing the homework, since that seems to be a waste of time for both the teacher and the student. if the teacher did not think the homework was essential, why would a student want such a teacher? if the student did not think the homework was essential, why would a teacher want such a student? i'm assuming someone is not doing the homework because it's no longer a win win situation, and it would be better for each to find win win's I took care to specify behavior in order to preempt refutations based on laws of physics. i thought behavior was based on laws of physics? laws of win win situations still have "have to"s do they not? "My room" and "your space" denote private property. When somebody sleeps is a characteristic of their body and time. You've accidentally argued against your position. I acknowledge that children particularly in the parent child relationship makes for a lot of grey areas in these matters. However, I don't think this at all detracts from the evaluation of "have to" being the opposite of making a convincing case. If it's of any use, I'm heavily biased against this sort of tactic. My father often speaks to people matter of factly when expressing opinions in an attempt to preempt scrutiny. Kind of like when people call commands backed by threats of violence laws. They do this so that people will not question it since you can't not be bound by gravity. Saying "have to" frames the conversation as if choice isn't present. If choice IS present and somebody is claiming it isn't there, they are acting contrary to your self-ownership. It is a threat, however minute and/or veiled in that moment. well i thought "go to bed" meant "go to bedroom" trying to force someone to sleep on command just sounds absurd. sure there are other choices, such as leave the house, that don't assume a parent beating the shit out of the kid someone could provide choices "have to leave the room, or leave the house" maybe i'm just looking at commands as a response to tresspass if a robber breaks in, "you have to get off my property" seems more sound than " you have many options, one option is to leave my property". sometimes choices need to be eliminated,such as in self defence, but sure, if there is no reason to eliminate choices, that can be agression to then limit choices. They are being dishonest by hiding that it's not an inevitable outcome like physics. Contrast: "If you get drunk one more time, I will demand that you move out of my house." This makes it clear that it's a voluntary decision on the part of the house owner. It also makes clearer that there are other possible responses, unlike "you will have to" hides. i'm not seeing the difference "you have to" is already a demand, so it seems the same as saying " i will demand that you" both seem inivitable, unless the person is does not mean what the person says and is not willing to back up the demand. saying "if you do x, you will have to y," leaves many options for the person not doing X, but only one option if the person does do X "Please leave. I want you to leave. I'm uncomfortable with you here. I want to get to sleep soon so please leave."Many ways to communicate it and not be opaque.Translating have-to into choose-to-because i choose to ask you to leave my room, because i want to rest. so the cop turns into i choose to pull you over, because i want people to follow the rules of the road and my job is to keep the road safe and and stop violators of the road. teacher to student becomes, i choose to ask you to do your homework, because i want my students to value what i teach and respect my time i don't have one for irs but loan collector to loan debter i choose to ask you to pay your bills, because i want my contracts honered and need to money to support my loan business.
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 if a robber breaks in, "you have to get off my property" If a robber breaks in (the initiation of the use of force), telling him he "has to" is collecting on the positive obligation he created when he violated your property rights. The is the basis for what's known as defensive force. To apply this to a child being told by their parent to go to bed, it would look like the child telling the parent they have to leave them to decide for themselves. You have accidentally argued against your position again. As such, I have to ask what your view of the parent child relationship is. Is the child the parent's property? If so, this part of the conversation would be meaningless as there would be no more scrutiny for telling them anything than there would be placing a book on a shelf or tossing it into a fire.
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 If a robber breaks in (the initiation of the use of force), telling him he "has to" is collecting on the positive obligation he created when he violated your property rights. The is the basis for what's known as defensive force. To apply this to a child being told by their parent to go to bed, it would look like the child telling the parent they have to leave them to decide for themselves. You have accidentally argued against your position again. As such, I have to ask what your view of the parent child relationship is. Is the child the parent's property? If so, this part of the conversation would be meaningless as there would be no more scrutiny for telling them anything than there would be placing a book on a shelf or tossing it into a fire. a child is not a parents property a child is a guest in the parents house. a child would not have a higher status than the parents on the parents property
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 a child is a guest in the parents house. a child would not have a higher status than the parents on the parents property A child isn't there voluntarily and is dependent upon them. I'm not responsible for feeding you. If I tied you up in MY basement, I have an obligation to feed you (among other things). In this regard, you definitely have a "higher status" than me on my own property.
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 the parents can give the child up for adoption the child could choose to leave on the childs own if the child is dependant on those particular parents, why not listen to the parents request for the child to leave the parents room and go to the childs bedroom which the parents are providing for the child?
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 the child could choose to leave on the childs own I live in NW Ohio, where we've just had the most brutal winter in recorded history. There were adult motorists whose car broke down and they died trying to walk to get help. I eat three meals a day. I cannot fathom how anybody could make the claim that a child could choose to leave. why not listen to the parents request The purpose of this thread wasn't to explore possible motivations for compliance. It was to point out that "have to" isn't a request like you describe it.
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 I live in NW Ohio, where we've just had the most brutal winter in recorded history. There were adult motorists whose car broke down and they died trying to walk to get help. I eat three meals a day. I cannot fathom how anybody could make the claim that a child could choose to leave. did the parents create the brutal winter? this is the same argument people use to say the state needs to tax people to provide all sorts of services to people, is it not? the parents are not creating the winter to create a hostage situation. the parents are offering a home as a alternative to a brutal winter that the parents did not create The purpose of this thread wasn't to explore possible motivations for compliance. It was to point out that "have to" isn't a request like you describe it. i don't think the only option a parent has for noncompliance is to spank repeatedly while ignoring cry's for mercy, as the OP seemed to suggest. "have to" , is command like, rather than request like, but the consequences of not following that command have more options on the table than spanking or abuse maybe it's just that the way school rules were taught "you have to look both ways before you cross the street", it was not " or we will beat your ass" is was "or you could be hit by a car" that vs "i choose to ask you to look both ways before you cross the street, because i want you to cross the street safely and i value your saftly" neither of these were threats for a punishment if the direction or request was not followed. i don' think it would be great for a parent to say " its your choice how you cross the street" and just let the child run in front of a car to get hit.
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 the parents are not creating the winter to create a hostage situation. MASSIVE miscommunication here. I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear with what I was saying. You said dependent children can leave. I said to leave is to die. That's not a choice. We know that abusive parents are counting on this (and other factors) because they don't behave overtly abusively to people who can evade them. i don't think the only option a parent has for noncompliance is to spank It doesn't need to be. I already made the case that it is a threat because it claims no choice where choice is present. In fact, upon further consideration, I change my position from it's a threat to it's direct theft. The threat is that if the theft is resisted, the advance will be escalated. This doesn't have to necessarily happen in the form of spanking. As sure as night follows day, those who use irrationale to subjugate others respond to resistance with escalation.
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 MASSIVE miscommunication here. I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear with what I was saying. You said dependent children can leave. I said to leave is to die. That's not a choice. We know that abusive parents are counting on this (and other factors) because they don't behave overtly abusively to people who can evade them. i did establish a whole range of options for the child in the home with options to work within the rules of the parents. say a guardian does not give the child the option of leaving "You have to stay in the house". does that make the person abusive? if its staying in the house or death, perhaps that's in the realm of physics, but sleep is as well a child that does not sleep will die. It doesn't need to be. I already made the case that it is a threat because it claims no choice where choice is present. In fact, upon further consideration, I change my position from it's a threat to it's direct theft. The threat is that if the theft is resisted, the advance will be escalated. This doesn't have to necessarily happen in the form of spanking. As sure as night follows day, those who use irrationale to subjugate others respond to resistance with escalation. if a child has no choice but to stay in the house, the child also has no choice but to go to sleep. i think a simple "you have to" lacks context
greekredemption Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 i think a simple "you have to" lacks context Don't be stupid, we have no need for context or shades of grey here.
dsayers Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 i did establish a whole range of options for the child in the home with options to work within the rules of the parents. "the rules" begs the question. Third time: The thread isn't about the capability of compliance, it's whether "the rules" are threats. I've made a strong case that they are, which you continue to ignore. i think a simple "you have to" lacks context I've made a strong case that it does not. IF you do NOT have to and somebody says you do have to, they have stolen choice from you with the threat that resisting their theft is tantamount to escalation.
Mark Carolus Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 If you asked me, the only have to there is, is the one that inevitably comes after I want to. You want x, then you have to do...... y, z or whatever
cab21 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 "the rules" begs the question. Third time: The thread isn't about the capability of compliance, it's whether "the rules" are threats. I've made a strong case that they are, which you continue to ignore. what is the context of the rules here? are these rules to stay alive? are these rules to give the parents dominance over the child at the whim of the parents? are these ruled agreed to by both the child and parents? are these rules about establishing order and ownership( not of the child, but of the living space) I've made a strong case that it does not. IF you do NOT have to and somebody says you do have to, they have stolen choice from you with the threat that resisting their theft is tantamount to escalation. in the outside example, telling someone they can't leave the parents house is taking away a option that they could do. it's stealing a choice to say a person can't just leave the house and die or whatever consequences happen from going outside. someone does not have to pull over after committing a murder/ grand theft auto someone does not have to pay a dept after signing a contract agreeing to pay the dept but in each of those cases, refusing to comply, and taking different options, is a resistance that is itself a escalation of violence. i guess if someone randomly walked up and said "you have to" sure, that person is initiating the violence. i'm just not used to people saying "you have to" randomly putting unneeded limits on rational options is a threat, but having rational rules against irrational options does not seem like such a violation "you have to make sure the water is not too hot and not too cold, before you give your child a bath" i would say "you have to" in this example only eliminates irrational options.
cab21 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 http://www.pennywassman.ca/overview.html so the section says “What do I need in this moment?” A cop to someone driving a car: "i need you to pull over" if the person says no this is a situation where the driver was initiating the violence right, or is the cop pulling the driver over without the authority to do so? A teacher to a student: "i need you to do your homework" if the person says no the teacher response is still to fire the student The IRS to a taxpayer: "i need you to give us money" if the person says no the response is to still take steps to receive the money by the law. A parent to a child: "i need you to go to bed" if the child says no a parents next option is maybe to say 'i need you to X" if the child still says no is there really a effort on the child parts to listen to the needs of the parent if the parent says "what do you need to go to bed", the parent has in return asked about the needs of the child then the parent is stuck in some negotiation with a child where the child can say whatever. and it's just rejecting needs from both sides
Recommended Posts