YouTube commenter defending beating children?

[Daguras]

I am really not sure what to make of this. So I responded to a comment on YouTube. What the content of that comment or my response entails is not relevant now, after reading this...

"Pardon me. But there is a difference between having consistent parents and having "abusive" parents. It used to be that whenever a kid did something bad, he was beaten, even by the schoolmasters. This was not abuse, this was discipline. Times have changed, and while it is not necessary for teachers to do this now, it is always necessary for parents to spank, slap, or belt their kids. The key is that when a parent does this, it MUST NOT be done in anger. If the need arises to yell at the kid in question, they need to remain hands off until they're cooler.

I was often beaten, sometimes quite harshly. This has made me into what I am now; a comparatively mild-mannered person, who has a fairly good lid on his temper. I do not hate my parents; they taught me virtually everything I know, and that is a debt that I can never repay. You, at the young age of fifteen, have very little to go off of. I encourage you to cultivate patience and foresight, and also be mindful of your inexperience. It's too soon for you to think about kids, I would imagine, but whatever you do, do not spare them from physical punishment. A kid has to learn that actions have consequences, and whatever your methods may be, a lesson hard learned is almost always a lesson well learned."

Again, I'm not sure what to make of this, and yes, I am 15. I am pretty sure that I know the difference between sadistic parenting and peaceful parenting. "Spanking" and "disciplinarian" are just code words for abusive behaviors. What do you guys have to say to this?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The more I come into contact with the word, the more I feel that "discipline" needs to be eviscerated from the English language. The line marking the difference between the meaning "to learn" and the meaning "to punish" is so gooey that it almost comes with the fallacy of equivocation like a side of fries.

 

Daguras, the guy's comment is just a single line of sophistry. Strawmen, strawmen, strawmen all the way down. I wouldn't even bother replying to it unless you want to turn it into an exercise of identifying logical fallacies. My only comment would be toward his "It may me what I am now". Yup, it made you into a person who encourages violently assaulting defenseless people. Good job.

[shirgall]

The more I come into contact with the word, the more I feel that "discipline" needs to be eviscerated from the English language. The line marking the difference between the meaning "to learn" and the meaning "to punish" is so gooey that it almost comes with the fallacy of equivocation like a side of fries.

 

Daguras, the guy's comment is just a single line of sophistry. Strawmen, strawmen, strawmen all the way down. I wouldn't even bother replying to it unless you want to turn it into an exercise of identifying logical fallacies. My only comment would be toward his "It may me what I am now". Yup, it made you into a person who encourages violently assaulting defenseless people. Good job.

 

Try looking at it from a language perspective. Discipline (essentially rule-following) makes disciples (rule-followers). Disciples are people that spread the teachings of an authority figure to others (in the derivation of the word, that authority figure was Jesus). So, in a way, bullies make more bullies and those bullies make more, like a psychopathy virus.

[MMX2010]

On a less-abstract note, "The purpose of loving parents is to train their children in the most efficient way possible.  Because science has discover that the most efficient way possible doesn't involve any form of either consistent or occasionally physical assault (i.e. - spanking), then the YouTube commenters parents failed him/her by not being superlative parents." 

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said, "on a less-abstract note....". 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Try looking at it from a language perspective. Discipline (essentially rule-following) makes disciples (rule-followers). Disciples are people that spread the teachings of an authority figure to others (in the derivation of the word, that authority figure was Jesus). So, in a way, bullies make more bullies and those bullies make more, like a psychopathy virus.

 

Oh, I get it. I just wanted to point out that I've just noticed over and over again that people will use the word discipline to say that a child (or anyone for that matter) needs to learn something, particularly self-control, then conflate that with beatings. We go into the conversation with "learn" and come out with "beat", and the word intertwines the two terms so well that they can hardly be pulled apart. Instant fallacy of equivocation. :/

[dsayers]

Discipline is itself a neutral word. If I stuff my gob with chocolate cake, that's my choice. If somebody else does it to me without my consent, it's assault. Similarly, the things we study voluntarily are disciplines, the act being disciplining ourselves. To discipline others without their consent is assault.

 

@Daguras: That you're 15 has no bearing on the truth value of any objective claim you could make. There are 15 year olds who have spent years studying things I've never looked into, making them an expert compared to me. Plus, at 15, you're actually in a rather ideal position to weight in on the subject of parenting since you haven't had decades of romanticizing the experience to cloud your recollection. Going back to my original point, we have scientific studies that help us to understand where aggression comes from. This has nothing to do with you or your age.

 

The person you're interacting with has provided a conclusion. His methodology for arriving at that conclusion was to assert that he turned out alright, therefore everything his parents did was infallible. Even if the conditional that he turned out alright was satisfied, that it means everything his parents did was infallible doesn't follow. Of course I would argue that somebody that condones and even speaks as if child abuse is necessary did NOT turn out alright.

 

The problem you're going to face though is you're trying to use logic, reason, and evidence to change somebody's mind when they didn't use logic, reason, or evidence to arrive at their conclusion. If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You cannot change people's minds until you understand WHY they think the way that they do. The person you're interacting with likely NEEDS to believe that violence is necessary because then he doesn't have to go through the world-shattering (from his perspective) process of facing the fact that his parents were sadistic and he was the instrument of their twisted delight.

[villagewisdom]

My response is always the same in this case. "What if there were another way?" and that's it. I just release it like letting a bird loose to the sky. Questions have the potential of opening their mind. And I have found that this particular question, once asked, does not go away. It sits inside and continually replays itself. It is not an easy question to dismiss. The natural curiosity of the mind will work it and work it and work it. I have found that I don't have to convince the bird to fly. It does that quite naturally once I let it go. 

 

If you actually get a response about what the other way might be, I would leave it to your discretion about whether to respond or not. My responses are usually links to authors on the topic rather than to pursue additional argument. When I re-engage in the argument, the irrationality surfaces again. I find it much more beneficial for them, and for myself, to let them investigate on their own. I just want to offer them the chance to open their mind to the possibility and get the information out there for them to pursue as they see fit. 

 

I have also found that I can use this effectively on myself for getting past blocks in my thinking. I just ask myself that question and let it go. Sometimes I can hear it playing over and over in my mind. "Another way" will eventually surface. The mind is a great thing and can solve many problems when given the chance. 

[Bedouin]

The person you're interacting with has provided a conclusion. His methodology for arriving at that conclusion was to assert that he turned out alright, therefore everything his parents did was infallible. Even if the conditional that he turned out alright was satisfied, that it means everything his parents did was infallible doesn't follow. Of course I would argue that somebody that condones and even speaks as if child abuse is necessary did NOT turn out alright.

 

The problem you're going to face though is you're trying to use logic, reason, and evidence to change somebody's mind when they didn't use logic, reason, or evidence to arrive at their conclusion. If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You cannot change people's minds until you understand WHY they think the way that they do. The person you're interacting with likely NEEDS to believe that violence is necessary because then he doesn't have to go through the world-shattering (from his perspective) process of facing the fact that his parents were sadistic and he was the instrument of their twisted delight.

 

What better an opportunity then to point out his disregard for logic, reason and evidence. I think that it's always worth trying to appeal to any rational bone in an opponents body before moving on.

 

That, or questioning them like villagewisdom said. It seems to work really well, in theory anyway, often there's little or no way of knowing for sure.

 

Another technique I've used once before and, Idk whether it was a success or not but he certainly mellowed, it involved going quite deep and profound. YouTube provides this luxury. His comments were very aggressive and I simply hazarded to guess that his childhood had not been fun, I included this assumption in my appeals to his rationality and didn't take an aggressive stance myself but rather an empathetic/sympathetic one.

[dsayers]

What does having a rational bone in their body mean if they're not willing to apply it? If a=b and b=c, then a=c... and hitting defenseless, dependent children who cannot escape is assault. The ability to process the first, innocuous rationale will have no bearing on encouraging a person to accept the latter when doing so would mean facing that everything they've ever known was based on a lie, the people they thought loved them and they could count on were sadistic, etc.

 

It can be good to plant the seed, especially if they've never been exposed to the possibility before. The moment they demonstrate an irrational resistance, any attempt to proceed is for your benefit, not theirs. I would even argue that doing so is not even to your benefit because trying to topple a brick wall with your bare hands would be in defiance of empirical evidence that such an effort is futile.

[shirgall]

Plenty of people that claim to be rational, and are rational about some things, but nonetheless are not rational about other things. They don't have the self-knowledge to recognize the dissonance or perhaps the will to take steps to deal with it. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

[Jonathan111]

This comment:

 

"I was often beaten, sometimes quite harshly. This has made me into what I am now; a comparatively mild-mannered person, who has a fairly good lid on his temper. I do not hate my parents; they taught me virtually everything I know, and that is a debt that I can never repay. You, at the young age of fifteen, have very little to go off of. I encourage you to cultivate patience and foresight, and also be mindful of your inexperience. It's too soon for you to think about kids, I would imagine, but whatever you do, do not spare them from physical punishment. A kid has to learn that actions have consequences, and whatever your methods may be, a lesson hard learned is almost always a lesson well learned."

 

reminds me of this:

 

[A4E]

I went head on with a guy on youtube (villain below) defending abuse recently. He has not replied for a while. At first I get emotional, but then I calm down and approach it as a challenge. There were plenty of other repliers but I really tried to dig into his mind. I am "Joarmusic"

 

villain original post:
Kids live to test limits. You explain to a child, firmly, calmly and rationally what he can and can't do, and if he disobeys? Spank him. A child isn't going to stop drawing on the wall because you sit him down and explain that he's hurting your feelings, and that not drawing on the walls is the least he can do given what you provide him. Children don't inherently have a moral code that stops them from being an ass, they learn that from their parents. So don't be surprised when they treat you like crap when you don't place any boundaries down. People need to stop acting like children are adults who can be reasoned with and expected to act maturely of their own free will.

 

 

me:

Do you feel it is ok to hit pets if they dont obey you?

Let me show you how your statement below falls apart:

You said:
"Children don't inherently have a moral code that stops them from being an ass, they learn that from their parents. So don't be surprised when they treat you like crap when you don't place any boundaries down."

You say that children learn moral codes from parents. Ok, so a situation where you are in charge, the child learns that it is moral to hit people who do not obey you. So dont be surprised when the child treats you like crap when that is EXACTLY what you are doing to the child.

Peacefull parenting trumps your invalid statements. Google Stefan Molyneux if you are interested in moral codes as you mention.

 

 

villain:
No, if my kid draws on the wall I tell him to stop. If he keeps doing it, I send him to his room or something along those lines. If he keeps doing it, then and only then do I hit him. It's about reinforcing consequences for continued disobedience. Also, what child doesn't have a drawing pad? They just don't recognise that drawing on the wall is wrong until you explain it to them. If they continue to draw on the wall while knowing they are in the wrong that's when you hit them.

+JoarMusic "Do you feel it is okay to hit pets if they disobey you?"

Emm, yes? You hit the dog for disobedience when he is young and then once he's older you never have to hit him because he obeys you, common sense.

Hitting your child doesn't teach him that violence is acceptable whenever someone disobeys you, it teaches him that there are consequences for his actions. If having his toys or xbox taken away doesn't stop his bad behaviour then I absolutely will hit them. You talk like it's a go to punishment, it's not, it's a last resort punishment for when you're being met with continual disobedience and bad behaviour. If you do it right then you should only ever have to hit your child a few times throughout his upbringing.


me:
Interesting. Could I perhaps ask you for advice on an issue I have?

My wife keeps slamming the door when she goes outside and comes home. This means the door structure is falling apart more and more for each day, and I have tried to tell her to stop slamming the door, I have explained firmly, calmly and rationally that she cannot do that, but she wont listen to me. She just keeps slamming the door. So she obviously knows that she is doing something wrong when I have told her to stop. What should I do?



villain:
go to marriage counselling because the woman you marry shouldn't have such little regard for your feelings


me:
I am confused.

When your children are not having any regard for your feelings when they know that they are doing something wrong, you had a perfect way of dealing with that which was depriving them of fun things, like xbox, and if that does not stop them, you would hit them.

But when my wife is not having any regard for my feelings when she knows that she is doing something wrong, you tell me to go with my wife to counseling to try to resolve the issue that way.

Could you please explain why you are using two different approaches to the same problem?



villain:
because a grown woman isn't a child? The only authority you have over your wife is what she allows you to have. She's a free, fully grown human being and can do what she wants. If she refuses to do what you ask of her and it causes you distress, you end the relationship. Obviously this is different with children because you have a moral obligation to raise them.



me:
If my wife is causing me distress, then I can end the relationship. Ok, got it. Thanks for the tip.

You say it is a moral obligation to raise children. Is that the reason why you are using a different approach to conflict resolution, than you adviced me to do with my wife? Because I am still at a loss for why you have two different approaches to the same problem. You say you have a moral obligation to raise a child, ok, but that does not explain the different approach. Could you please help me understand why I cannot use one approach for both situations?

Why can I not go with my child to counseling, or why can I not take away enjoyable things from my wife and in the end hit her if she does not listen?



villain:
Because a child doesn't need counselling. They are still developing and as such need guidance. If your wife however acts like a child, she has serious issues because grown women are meant to be mature and sensible. I have no idea why you can't distinguish between the two, your wife is your equal and an adult, your child is not. You can't confiscate your wife's possessions or punish her in any way because as a grown adult that would be against her human rights.

+Carl Parrish Fallacious to assert that spanking is about taking your anger or deep seated insecurities out on a child. If you're angry when you hit your child, you're doing it wrong. It's to reinforce that there are consequences to their actions, not to vent your own frustration with their misbehaviour. Your child will grow to respect you when you subject him to authority when he disobeys. A child isn't born with respect for you, you earn it from him.



me:
"Because a child doesn't need counselling. They are still developing and as such need guidance."

Could you please explain how taking away fun things and inflicting possibly dangerous physical pain incorporate into a word like guidance?


"If your wife however acts like a child, she has serious issues because grown women are meant to be mature and sensible."

If children are not mature or sensible, then how are they going to understand that they are being punished for what they are doing? Is it your opinion that children are the same as a grown person with serious issues? If that is the case, how do you defend hitting the equivalent of a person with serious issues?


"I have no idea why you can't distinguish between the two, your wife is your equal and an adult, your child is not."

Children are not adults, ok. Are they also not our equals? If so, what makes them less, or not at all equal?


"You can't confiscate your wife's possessions or punish her in any way because as a grown adult that would be against her human rights."

If my wife has a human right, and your child does not, how is this a human right? Are children not humans?


"If you're angry when you hit your child, you're doing it wrong."

How does a child differentiate between when it is being hit the right way and being hit the wrong way?  Also according to you, children are not mature or sensible so that cannot help them in figuring this out.
 

"It's to reinforce that there are consequences to their actions"

If your child repeatedly draws on the wall, which is a pretty harmless conduct, and then you see it fit to hit the child to make it stop, then I would like to see you being punished by having to eat pharmacy drugs for 2 weeks which would mess substantially with your brain as you hitting the child did with the childs brain. Would this be acceptable punishment as guidance for your method of parenting?


"Your child will grow to respect you when you subject him to authority when he disobeys."

How does this work? My brother was subjected to authority from my father. My brother never respected him. So that is one example deviant of your statement.

When I was going to school, there were a few guys and girls who was subjected to authority by some emotional teachers on a regular basis, but they never grew to respect them. Other teachers who made their case in a peacefull non authoritative manner almost always gained respect however.


"A child isn't born with respect for you, you earn it from him."

Amen. Could you tell me, about your child who draws on the wall through repeated  disapproval from you, how much the child respect you?

I have respect for many people. None of which hit me once.



villain:
 Not going to reply to this since it is absolute nonsense. Children are our equals? Lol okay.

"then I would like to see you being punished by having to eat pharmacy drugs for 2 weeks which would mess substantially with your brain as you hitting the child did with the childs brain."

Two things. First off, do you have any actual proof that hitting a kid "messes with his brain"? You realise most children will get into physical fights much worse than a light smack on the behind as they grow and develop, right?

Number two, what is wrong with you? You're one of those people that think adults are children to the government, they're not. Adults are free to do what they like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Children do not have the same rights as adults because the clause behind most rights is that they are only given to rational adults. A schizophrenic for example could be detained against his will or not allowed to own firearms if his condition is bad enough because it makes him no longer rational.  Should children be able to vote? Own a house? Have sex? No, of course not. Because they are children and as such their parents are responsible for them.



me:
"Not going to reply to this since it is absolute nonsense."

If it is absolute nonsense, how did you get anything from it?


"Children are our equals? Lol okay."

I asked you how in your opinion your child is not equal to you.
 

"Two things. First off, do you have any actual proof that hitting a kid "messes with his brain"?"

google -spanked children brain


"You realise most children will get into physical fights much worse than a light smack on the behind as they grow and develop, right?"

I recognize this happens yes. But then also the children can be aware and understand what situation they are in and how everything transpired into it. Unless it is bullying, in which the victim has no idea why he/she is being targeted, and can suffer tremendous psychological effects, and even death, either from the bullying or by suicide.


"Number two, what is wrong with you? You're one of those people that think adults are children to the government, they're not."

You are incorrect. I do not hold this opinion.


"Adults are free to do what they like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Children do not have the same rights as adults because the clause behind most rights is that they are only given to rational adults."

So if children are not rational, why are you expecting them to listen when you tell them something?
 

"A schizophrenic for example could be detained against his will or not allowed to own firearms if his condition is bad enough because it makes him no longer rational."

Do you expect a schizophrenic to listen if you tell him something? Is it ok to hit a schizophrenic if he does not listen?


"Should children be able to vote? Own a house? Have sex? No, of course not. Because they are children and as such their parents are responsible for them."

Daycare workers are responsible for children every day. Is it ok with you if your child is in day care and does not listen to the daycare workers, for them to then hit your child?



villain:
Studies on IQ lowering caused by spanking are totally fallacious. They don't distinguish a light two or three smacks after continual disobedience and a savage beating given by a mentally ill parent looking to vent his or her anger. Of course being actually abused by your parent will effect you negatively, the problem is the people doing these studies were unable to distinguish, presumably because they were biased and pushing an agenda.

You don't hit a schizophrenic man if he doesn't listen, but if he is in a mental hospital you sedate him and put him back to his room, which is a form of physical force, yes. A random man does not have the right to restrain a schizophrenic man because he is not charged with his care.

Rational does not mean incapable of responding to authority, it just means you're not capable of making sensible decisions consistently.

Daycare workers should be allowed to hit children with and only with the parents permission. That having been said I don't send my kids to daycare. We know parents in the neighbourhood anyways so when they were that age they socialised through playdates. At school I would be 100% okay with a teacher hitting a child, but only a smack on the hands and only if I trust the teacher in person is of good character.



Me:
As it seems you are completely unwilling to see the faulty morality, and refuse to treat children as other human beings, let me ask you why you have not considered using other forms of punishment that does not involve violence, like timeouts. Where do you stand on such methods?


"Studies on IQ lowering caused by spanking are totally fallacious. They don't distinguish a light two or three smacks..."

If I give my wife two or three light smacks in the face if she does something I dont want her to do after telling her rationally and calmly, do you feel that is a good approach to human interaction?


"Rational does not mean incapable of responding to authority, it just means you're not capable of making sensible decisions consistently."

(I am assuming there is a typo in here, and that you mean irrational)

So again if children are not capable of making sensible decisions consistently, doesn't that actually give them an excuse for not being able to do what you want? Its like saying a guy who has lost one leg and is using a prostethic, who has trouble walking, should be punished if he fails to walk properly. Do you understand what im trying to get at?
Shouldn't you rather try to help a child understand by communicating verbally or perhaps drawing to the child to explain what you want the child to do if you feel they have a handicap? How does using violence against what you feel is the equivalent of a mentally handicapped human being have morality?
 

[villagewisdom]

Yes, we want them to stop hitting their children. But arguing about whether it is rational or not can obfuscate the learning that the child is reaching for in the described circumstance. What I mean is that this parent is trying to teach his child that drawing on the walls is an improper medium for that activity -- in this circumstance. Hitting a child or even sending them to their room does nothing to teach them about proper use of materials, what a mural is, other forms of art and how and where they are done. It does nothing to teach them the real consequences of writing on the walls. The clean up. The extra effort required to bring the space back to normality. Paper can be purchased and replaced. Walls have to be cleaned or painted.

 

There are many opportunities for actually teaching the child something about how the world functions. None of them require punishment of any kind. That is peaceful parenting. It is light years beyond simply not hitting children. What are you trying to teach the child? What is the child stretching to learn? Work with them. Listen to them. Instruct them and see what they do with the instruction and make your choices from there. Simply teaching them to obey does nothing toward teaching them to be an adult -- except to obey and insist on having their way. Peaceful parenting is so much more than not hitting. It is no punishment of any kind. It is realizing that what a child does is not wrong -- ever. It is a choice they made. Peaceful parenting is making the effort to find out what they are trying to learn and assisting them with that learning. 

 

Arguing or making rational arguments pits him against you in a battle and there is nothing to say that he cares one whit about being rational. It's a fight and he only cares about winning. Present an alternative to him and the punishment will automatically end. All you need to do is make the alternative win-win argument. And the winning side for you is preparing yourself for dealing with these situations with your own children. 

[neeeel]

interesting conversation A4E. I am guessing similar conversations, with similar results, happen all the time. You can point out rational flaws in his arguments, but in the end, it all comes down to their beliefs that children are not fully human.

That somehow children are inherently bad, selfish, dont care about others and that they need to be taught these things, through violence if necessary. And yes, while their behaviour can seem to be selfish and uncaring, they are also very generous, giving, and caring, with a deep need for connection with other humans. They ( the children) are the sane ones, with a good grasp of reality, while we are the insane ones, lost in delusion.

That in order to become fully human, children "need to learn" certain things. "oh, he has to learn that the world doesnt work that way". when the child can clearly see that the world DOES in fact work that way.

You asked him why children dont have rights. This idea of rights is flawed. He says "we only give rights to rational adults" and  in a way, hes right. But they are totally fictitious things, used to determine between self and "other", and justify abuse of the other . "He doesnt have rights, so its ok for me to treat him like shit"

 

It seems to me that a lot of adults are actually scared of children, and being with children. Maybe, like stef says, its because they cant bear to see honesty and integrity , and compare it to their own mess of delusional thinking. Even adults that do spend time with children, are afraid of really getting to know them.

[Jonathan111]

A4E,

 

You did great, Thank you for taking the time to engage that person in conversation. I wonder if some conversations we have with people are fruitless but actually, we don't know how close they are to changing their mind.

 

Time for an anecdote:

 

My wife discovered that our 5 year old daughter had used markers on several of her dolls and her legos. Because of how my wife was raised, she was totally distressed on how to "address the problem" so she decided to not mention it to our daughter until my wife and I had a chance to discuss it.

 

I asked my wife, "How do you feel about what our daughter (Annabel) did?"

 

"Well, she ruined her dolls because I can't wash the marker off! I don't know what to do! Should we take her dolls away until she figures out how to take care of her stuff properly?"

 

I thought for a minute going over how that scenario might play out and dismissed that idea as a total lose-lose. I then asked, "does Annabel own her toys?"

 

"Yes, of course." my wife replied.

 

"What do you think the reason was as to Annabel's decision to 'explore her creativity' in this manner?" I said. 

 

My wife then saw the look in my eye and smile on my face and exclaimed, "THAT'S IT! She just thought she was making her dolls more pretty! She was being creative!"

 

"Did we not give her the toys and told her that her toys belonged to her? Is our daughter free to do what she wants with her possessions? Do you think that Annabel will discover on her own that marking up her dolls is irreversible and that the changes she made she will have to accept?"

 

"Wow..." gasped my wife, "I was totally stressing on what to say to Annabel...

 

To make this story shorter, we waited till we saw that she was playing with one of her modified toys and asked if she liked the new colors she chose for her doll...

 

Our daughter then begin what was to be a 30 minute conversation of what colors she chose and why and what turned out good and what did not and it was really interesting her thought processes as to her creativity.  She did ask if we could clean them and we said, "we can try together but I think it might be permanent."

 

We complemented her on her "new designs" and "choice of colors" and then said that she is free to do anything she wants to her toys but that some choices are regretfully long lasting. 

 

The lesson that my wife and I took from this is that her actions were self-correcting and only required us to point some things out. 

 

We never showed displeasure or anger towards what she did - only genuine curiosity and interest in her choices.

 

Weeks later, Annabel said our of the blue, "I don't think I'm going to put make-up on (color) my dolls anymore, I don't like the way it looks." 

[A4E]

Thanks for sharing Jonathan! Very intriguing.

 

When I have children, that is the kind of interaction I want to have aswell.