Hi, y'all. As some of you probably know, I have rather non-standard views on potty-training. Simply put, I don't find the all-toilet-all-the-time conditioning to be necessary, and I even think it can be harmful. Well, a few days ago, I left of comment on this pic: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/31717921/ It read: "They should all just forget the potty and go in their pull-ups.
Yes, I would say that to an IRL child, because potty training blows."
Now, that was kinda me being terse because of this line in the description: "DISCLAMER: Do not say stuff in the comments you wouldnt say to a child IRL. I put love into this picture, don't ruin it for me....."
Anyways, I managed to piss some people off, but the one that's relevent is mikey-the-little.
He posted this as a reply: "Good thing you aren't a parent, that's a pretty awful way to go about things. Can't tell if you're serious or not, but this is in bad taste my dude. Tell a real kid that and see how long it takes for their parents to call the cops"
So, for the reason explained in the messages themselves, I had to take this conversation to PMs. This is how it went. He gave me permission to post it publicly, so that's what I'm doing.
Catlover1019: Reply to your reply to me here: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/31717921/ Can't post it there because Landon blocked me. Might post in a journal too, just so it's "out there."
Of course I wouldn't just say it to a random kid. I'm not an idiot. Really, it's probably a bad idea to talk at all to random kids in today's world. In actuality, I wouldn't tell a kid who actually wanted to use the potty not to, however if they were my kid, I'd make it clear that going in their pants/pullup/diaper/whatever is always an option if that's what they want. I just don't believing in compulsory all-potty-all-the-time potty-training. Of course, they should know how to hold it and how to clean themselves up if need be, but if they don't want to use the potty all the time if they don't want to. Yes, I'm not a parent, but I don't really think that's inherently a good thing just because I have the beliefs that I do. I'd say this same thing to Landon, but he has me blocked. _______________________________________________________________________________
mikey-the-little: To be totally frank, dude, I'm glad you aren't a parent. I don't think you realize what it's like to be a parent and see your child struggle to use the potty when they want to be like their peers. How about the fact that often times they need to be potty trained to even go to pre-k, let alone kindergarten. Do you know what that does to the child's self confidence? I honestly don't care if their your beliefs or not, and if you aren't ready for the consequences of stating those beliefs, which may indicate child abuse in the real world, then don't even bother to state it. I'm happy to discuss more, and I won't block you if you want a discussion, just know that I am a parent, and I'm absolutely disgusted. _______________________________________________________________________________
Catlover1019: Sure, let's have a discussion. I would like to ask you if I can have permission to post this public ally (completely unedited) at my discretion. I do prefer my discussions and debates to be available for all to see.
Yes, if one builds one's child's self-esteem around being a "big boy" and using the potty like their peers, it's pretty obvious that the kid will be very unhappy if that doesn't always work out. However, as I implied via my wording, I think this is mostly the parents doing. For instance saying things like:
"Little Jimmy uses the potty, don't you want to be a big boy like him?" "Diapers are for babies, not big boys like you." "Only babies go potty in their pants." "Don't you want to wear undies like a big boy?"
Statements like these make children center their self-worth around potty training and conformity. I don't think this is right. Like I said before, I'm not stupid enough to try to "fix" it for some random kid, but I sure as shit wouldn't raise my own kid that way.
Yes, I recognize that this is a society problem, and that my kid would still be affected by how society at large sees things no matter what I did. That's why I do think it's best that kids in as things are now wear regular underwear and use the toilet while at school, and I would teach my child to do so, but without any of that sort of subversive rhetoric. Because pretty much everyone raises the kids in that manner, including parents of bullies (who probably do it even worse, likely being bullies themselves), and teachers were also raised that way.
However at home, if they want to wear diapers I don't see that was at all a bad thing. /pull-ups/whatever and not worry about the potty, more power to them. Yes, I think without connecting potty-training to self work, many, maybe even most kids would choose to go in their pants instead of the toilet from time to time. Also, this might be an actual workable compromise for those kids that really don't take very well to pottyt-training. (Yes, there seem to be quite a few. I see forum posts from concerned mothers about their four-year-colds who refuse to poop in the potty all the time.) Of course, independence is important, so they should be taught how to clean themselves up, but besides that, I really don't think there should be any problems.
Yes, for some reason that I honestly don't understand, there seem to be people who think it's somehow "child abuse" to let a child have more control over their own bodies and how they relieve themselves. I really don't get it, but it's obviously a symptom of the problem with how our society views potty-training and diapers. Please, if you can show me any evidence that it is harmful to not force children to compactly give up diapers do so. _______________________________________________________________________________
mikey-the-little: "Sure, let's have a discussion. I would like to ask you if I can have permission to post this public ally (completely unedited) at my discretion. I do prefer my discussions and debates to be available for all to see. "
Go for it
"Yes, if one builds one's child's self-esteem around being a "big boy" and using the potty like their peers, it's pretty obvious that the kid will be very unhappy if that doesn't always work out. However, as I implied via my wording, I think this is mostly the parents doing. For instance saying things like:
"Little Jimmy uses the potty, don't you want to be a big boy like him?" "Diapers are for babies, not big boys like you." "Only babies go potty in their pants." "Don't you want to wear undies like a big boy?"
Statements like these make children center their self-worth around potty training and conformity. I don't think this is right. Like I said before, I'm not stupid enough to try to "fix" it for some random kid, but I sure as shit wouldn't raise my own kid that way."
"Yes, I recognize that this is a society problem, and that my kid would still be affected by how society at large sees things no matter what I did. That's why I do think it's best that kids in as things are now wear regular underwear and use the toilet while at school, and I would teach my child to do so, but without any of that sort of subversive rhetoric. Because pretty much everyone raises the kids in that manner, including parents of bullies (who probably do it even worse, likely being bullies themselves), and teachers were also raised that way. "
I'm gonna pull the parent card here and say you have no idea what you're talking about, especially since you aren't a parent and I doubt, given what you're saying, you have any consistent interaction with young kids. Every parent teaches their child differently, especially since every child is different and will respond in different ways. I have no idea what you mean by "subversive rhetoric.
"However at home, if they want to wear diapers I don't see that was at all a bad thing. /pull-ups/whatever and not worry about the potty, more power to them. Yes, I think without connecting potty-training to self work, many, maybe even most kids would choose to go in their pants instead of the toilet from time to time. Also, this might be an actual workable compromise for those kids that really don't take very well to pottyt-training. (Yes, there seem to be quite a few. I see forum posts from concerned mothers about their four-year-colds who refuse to poop in the potty all the time.) Of course, independence is important, so they should be taught how to clean themselves up, but besides that, I really don't think there should be any problems."
There's a very simple answer to this: Encouraging it, as you said, is going to cause a regressive episode in behavior more than likely. It's one thing for wetting the bed, but telling your child directly that if they want to wear diapers at home they can, especially at such an impressionable age, is going to cause problems with their development, and I can nearly guarantee that (as every child is different). This is a really horrifying idea, and is borderline subtle child abuse.
Also, if you don't have kids, or work with kids, why are you looking at forums about it? I mean you do you, none of my business, I just want to know how that matters to you. Those concerned mothers? Their child will refuse for all kinds of reasons, usually some kind of fear. You don't just say "oh it's ok, wear diapers", you try to work on the fear, which has far reaching implications beyond potty training. Think beyond diapers for a long while and understand why it's a bad idea to just let your child skirt around responsibility, fear, etc, because they will never totally learn independence.
"Yes, for some reason that I honestly don't understand, there seem to be people who think it's somehow "child abuse" to let a child have more control over their own bodies and how they relieve themselves. I really don't get it, but it's obviously a symptom of the problem with how our society views potty-training and diapers. Please, if you can show me any evidence that it is harmful to not force children to compactly give up diapers do so."
Because in encouraging diaper usage beyond potty training as a sort of "you do what you want" kind of thing does not work on such young children. They will very likely get the wrong idea as they lack a lot of understanding of the world, much less than people in this fandom seem to think I guess.
And at the end of the day, this reeks of someone trying to push their own interests on their child, which is wrong to me, and wrong to just about any sane parent out there. so. _______________________________________________________________________________
Catlover1019 I'll admit that I was kinda making terse statement there as opposed to phrasing it in a completely accurate way. I guess I more honest and long-winded comment would be something like "If they were my kids, they'd know that using the potty all the time isn't a big deal, and that using their pull-up when it's the more convenient choice is a-ok."
Yes, of course every parent teaches their child differently, but from what I've picked up from cultural osmosis and from when my brother was little, it seems very common to say things like what I quoted, and in fact it seems like the idea of potty-training without that big-kid rhetoric and comparisons would be pretty foreign to most parents. That's what I mean by subversive rhetoric, trying to make kids want to use the toilet by telling them that it makes them "big" and "mature" as well as comparing them to their peers/siblings. While I doubt the comparisons are so nearly universal, the first part certainly seems to be. If you think I'm wrong about that, please let me know, but that's what I meant.
I think some of the problem here is that our fundamental assumptions are different. The idea of a "regressive episode" in the context of toileting is meaningless if diapser use isn't seen to be an age-related thing, which is what I'm shooting for. I think ideally diapers should be seen as a tool of convince to defer potty breaks in much the same way that VCRs allowed as to timeshift TV shows. Of course everyone should still learn to use toilets and be comfortable doing do, but ultimately how they relieve themselves should be up to the individual. In these debates, I often have people referring to potty-training an "learning" and it certainly is, however there's another compenent to it in nearly all cases. If it was just about "learning" how to use the toilet and becoming comfortable with it (as well as practicing control), that'd be one thing, but that's not all it is. It really is training in the "conditioning" sense to make kids think that the only acceptable way to relive themselves is by using the toilet. I disagree.
Unless you're a child psychologist, your intuition that letting children choose not to use the toilet all the time will almost always cause problems with their development is completely irrelevant, especially if you're idea of "problems" is not using the toilet, which would make it an entirely circular argument. I'm not saying your argument is circular, though, I'll give you more credit than that, I am curious what "problems" you think would happen besides that. Please provide outside evidence or at least sound logical arguments for your claims.
As I hope I've made clear, my intention is not to let kids hide behind fear in order to not face responsibility. It is important that people are comfortable using the toilet, as even in a diaper-accepting world, I can forsee cases were that's just simply easier and more convenient. While I have no doubt that some kids really do genuinely fear using the toilet, and it may even be the most common problem, it certainly isn't the only problem. There's also the fact that many kids don't like change that they see as unnecessary. This is different than fear, though I see how one could get the two confused. Most adults would argue that potty-training isn't at all unnecessary, however I would have to largely disagree. Of course, as I said before I do think it's important that everyone know how to use the toilet and be comfortable doing so and in as things now, it's probably wise to act "normal" at school. However, switching to all-potty-all-the-time I do find to be unnecessary. Additionally, as I've already covered, I think the main "point" of diapers for people of sound body and mind is convenience, and I have no doubt that some actual children see it the same way,
I think the vast majority of "people in the fandom" would take exception to the likes of me being grouped with them. I speak only for myself, and can not realy consider myself fully a furry, babyfur, or ABDL. For one, I haven't used a diaper since I was an actual baby, and I usually steer well clear of fandom drama, unless I or a friend of mine is the subject of the drama itself. Additionally, there's probably only one "group" you could pick where the majority of other members in it wouldn't hate me (or at very least find me disgusting), and it's not any of those.
Please tell me what the "wrong idea" the kids would get is. In my opinion, the "right idea" is that diapers are for whoever feels like using diapers, as well of course for those who have no choice, and using a diaper and using the toilet different ways to accomplish the same goal that each have their own pros and cons. Of course, toddlers can't understand all that, but what part of it would give them an idea so "wrong" that it is determental to their well-being, or that of others?
As it is today, some kids genuinely have difficulty "understanding" why they *have* to use the toilet all the time, and I'm honestly right along with them, especially if it's only pee, an the alternative is a pull-up that they can take care of entirely by themselves. In that case, it literally effects nobody except the child, not even the parent(s). (Yes, I know that diapers cost money, but for most people, it isn't enough to make a difference). Yes, that is just an example, and I am not further weakening my position to limit it to just pee and pull-ups. (However I do think that pull-ups with the absorbency of diapers would be the ideal waste-containment undergarment for independent children). Instead, I'm mrely suggesting that changing-duty would persist until the child is old enough to handle it on their own. Also, form what I understand, it's always easier to change somebody else's diaper than one's own, so if any subset of a society actually adopts these ideas, peers helping eachother out and changing eachother might be an option. (Of course that gets to other questions of how society sees nudity, but that's another discussion.)
Basically, young kids are never gonna understand every intricacy of anything, but I think that what most people are asking them to "understand" isn't even correct. It's always easier to understand something that is intuitive and true than something that isn't.
Of course, I only have the one mind, so I can't really say if I'm truly just saying these things due to my own "interests" or not. I certainly don't feel like I am, though. As I said before, I've never had the opportunity to actually use a diaper post potty-training, but to deny an interest would be an obvious lie. I do think some evidence that it truly is something I'm logically convinced of independent any fondness for diapers and bodily waste, is that I remember aving these thoughts quite a bit before I had such a fondness. When my brother was potty-training and I was around 9 (he was 4, being rather resistant to it), I remember thinking very similar things to what I think now. "So what if he wants to pee in the pull-up, he's not hurting anyone." He wasn't "afraid" of the toilet. He was just busy doing other stuff, and it's the same thing I would have done had it been an option for me. _______________________________________________________________________________
mikey-the-little: "I'll admit that I was kinda making terse statement there as opposed to phrasing it in a completely accurate way. I guess I more honest and long-winded comment would be something like "If they were my kids, they'd know that using the potty all the time isn't a big deal, and that using their pull-up when it's the more convenient choice is a-ok." "
This isn't helping your case at all. The method you're advocating here does not help your child train at all, really. I can't think of a single pediatrician out there that would tell you this is ok. A child trained like this is still going to have issues growing up with confidence, and in being accepted. Not to mention, you're encouraging them to use a pull up or something at school with these words. Yes, they have that kind of effect.
"Yes, of course every parent teaches their child differently, but from what I've picked up from cultural osmosis and from when my brother was little, it seems very common to say things like what I quoted, and in fact it seems like the idea of potty-training without that big-kid rhetoric and comparisons would be pretty foreign to most parents. That's what I mean by subversive rhetoric, trying to make kids want to use the toilet by telling them that it makes them "big" and "mature" as well as comparing them to their peers/siblings. While I doubt the comparisons are so nearly universal, the first part certainly seems to be. If you think I'm wrong about that, please let me know, but that's what I meant."
Do you know why that rhetoric is used? Because you can't use adult logic on a 2 year old and expect the same outcome. What you meant is still pretty much incorrect. Like, objectively incorrect, and to me it shows a deep lack of experience with actually raising children.
"I think some of the problem here is that our fundamental assumptions are different. The idea of a "regressive episode" in the context of toileting is meaningless if diapser use isn't seen to be an age-related thing, which is what I'm shooting for. I think ideally diapers should be seen as a tool of convince to defer potty breaks in much the same way that VCRs allowed as to timeshift TV shows. Of course everyone should still learn to use toilets and be comfortable doing do, but ultimately how they relieve themselves should be up to the individual. In these debates, I often have people referring to potty-training an "learning" and it certainly is, however there's another compenent to it in nearly all cases. If it was just about "learning" how to use the toilet and becoming comfortable with it (as well as practicing control), that'd be one thing, but that's not all it is. It really is training in the "conditioning" sense to make kids think that the only acceptable way to relive themselves is by using the toilet. I disagree. "
You're comparison the evolution of technology leading to convenience to a topic of hygiene and self worth? You're now projecting your adult interests on to children with a bad analogy to boot. It should definitely be up to the individual....once they are an adult and can be responsible for their own choices.
"Unless you're a child psychologist, your intuition that letting children choose not to use the toilet all the time will almost always cause problems with their development is completely irrelevant, especially if you're idea of "problems" is not using the toilet, which would make it an entirely circular argument. I'm not saying your argument is circular, though, I'll give you more credit than that, I am curious what "problems" you think would happen besides that. Please provide outside evidence or at least sound logical arguments for your claims."
I'm a father. I've actually potty trained my child. Tell me I'm not an expert on raising my own child.
This, plus your lack of understanding that people have lives that aren't debating common sense on the Internet, tells me I'm out. _______________________________________________________________________________
Catlover1019: I think even children as young as pre-school age can understand the concept of different rules depending on the situation, i.e whether they're at home or school. That's all this boils down to. Yes, this syetem would work better if potty-training typically came a year-or-two later, but that's largely already happening, so it's kinda a moot point.
I think you're kinda trying to have your cake and eat it to. You keep on trying to frame this as some sort of self-worth issue, when the only reason that kids ever see it as such is because the adults around them frame it as such. That's the reason why I believe said rhetoric is so bad. You've yet to explain how I'm projecting my adult interests on to children. It is a matter of convenience. For people who don't "need" them, diapers can, and should, be seen as a tool of convenience. From the anecdotal things that I've seen, many children do see it in exactly that way until it's conditioned out of them. The thing is, these are choices which largely effect nobody but the individual themselves, and I've already explained why that's so.
I have no doubt that current potty-training techniques are very efficient is achieving the goal of the child using the toilet all the time, I just reject that goal, and think there are other things worry of considering. As I hope should be clear from what I've said, what I'd like to see is diaper-use being normalized for people of all ages. I believe without the conditioning that most children go through, it would be commonplace for people to use diapers in situations such as movies, where they don't want to get up and take a bathroom break. Any sexual fetish is entirely irrelevant, because from what I understand that type of thing largely comes about *because* it is seen as abnormal, and possibly trying to recapture childhood, which wouldn't make sense if diapers weren't considered something only for very young children and disables people.
"I'm a father. I've actually potty trained my child. Tell me I'm not an expert on raising my own child."
There's a couple problems with that. I have no doubt that your experiences have been consistent with your talk of self-worth, and such, however I'm trying to say that the reason it becomes an issue of self worth at all is due to how potty-training is done, and it's not at all inherent to the issue. Also, it kinda falls flat hen you consider that as uncommon as my opinions are, there are some parents who share them or similar ones, and actually raising a child didn't change that. Even the idea of child-led potty training is actually pretty mainstream, and while the goal is still unfortunately to get the child to use the toilet all the time, it definitely seems to be giving children more credit than you do.
So, no I'm not gonna treat your thoughts ad the end-all-be-all of child-rearing when other people who have also raised children have different thoughts. You're making generalizations to all, or most children, and you need to do more than just say that you're a parent to back it up.
I do understand that people are busy and have actual lives. I was merely worried, as I said in the shout, that I had managed to scare you off. I needed to know whether or not that was the case. The fact that you're calling this an "issue of common sense" and acting like what you believe is self-evidently true isn't doing much to bring depth and substance to this conversation.
If it's really so obvious, you should easily be able to form a cogent argument that comes to the conclusion you want. The fact that you're not even trying to do so, and in fact have ignored many of my direct questions makes it hard for me to say that you're really arguing in good faith. _______________________________________________________________________________
mikey-the-little: Just stop dude, I'm not interested in this. It's full of ignorant thought and trying to push your own interests on children. _______________________________________________________________________________
And here, for sake of completelness is the little conversation we had it the shouts. When I posted the first one, it had been a couple days, and I was honestly worried that I had managed to scare him off. I wasn't trying to be impatient.
Me: "Dude, are you gonna reply to my PM? It's fine if you're busy and stuff, I just need to know if you're gonna reply eventually."
Him "I was literally about to. I've got company over, and I've had to make sure my daughter got to her grandparents across the country ok and that that was settled. If you can't be patient about it I have no reason to respond."
Me: "Wasn't trying to be impatient man, I was just worried I'd scared you off. It's happened before." _______________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, I'm mostly posting this for posterity, but of course, I'm open for more debate in the comments. I do have to ask, that no matter how ignorant you think I am, you actually take the time to explain exactly how you think I'm wrong, rather than pulling rank or something stupid. If what I have to say is so obviously wrong, it should be easy to explain exactly what I've got wrong. Claims require evidence, either in the form of outside information, or logical argument. If you can provide neither. I have no use talking to you.
That kinda sounds a bit too much like antiauthoritarian parenting. That said, I think it's a good thing if a kid learns at a specific ages, that there's a time and place for everything, including emptying the bladder and voiding the bowels. But I honestly can't say if it messes up a kid greatly, if it doesn't learn that in time. I think mikey is right when it comes to preschool and stuff like that, kids should be potty trained by then.
For different kinds of parenting you'd have to take a look into different countries, I guess. Some kids in China wear those split pants, where the crotch area is open, so that they can quickly squat somewhere, when they have to go, which also leads to the constant criticism of China and parenting, when they allow to let their kids take a pee in bottles or take a dump on the streets. Not just from an aesthetical point of view (getting a snapshot of a kid taking a crap or a leak in China is a great photo opportunity for tourists (just check flickr for tons of photos like these)), but also from a hygienic point of view, as streets are no sewers and being surrounded by feces might contribute to the outbreak of several illnesses, including epidemic plagues.
Rural parts of India might be an even better example, as not only kids crap into streets, back alleys or on beaches, but adults alike. Statistics show that the people there are more likely to have smart phones than to have toilets installed in their homes, which leads to people crapping everywhere, again flickr is a silent witness. I guess this also shows how a part of a society might end up when toilet (training) is optional. So the remaining question is, if a society like that is worth the freedom to soil oneself as a kid. Something I personally never enjoyed as a kid when it happened accidentally.
That kinda sounds a bit too much like antiauthoritarian parenting. That said, I think it's a good th
No matter how you look at it, it's significantly more sanitary to use a diaper and throw it away (or wash it if it's a cloth one) than to just shit in the street.
As I tried to explain to Mikey, disregarding any fetish, diapers can and should be seen as a tool to defer bathroom breaks to more convenient times. This has nothing to do with age or anything of the sort. It's better than risking hurting oneself from holding it too long, and really sometimes there really isn't any way to take a potty break, and even if there is, it shouldn't be compulsory when there are other methods that harm no one.
Even just shitting in regular underwear usually keeps the mess contained in the undergarment in question, so really can't be said to be very unsanitary.
Basically, the whole idea of switching completely to the toilet no matter what at a certain age is flawed IMO. Of course, people need to be able to control their bodily functions, but how they are ultimately taken care of should really be the choice of the individual, as long as they aren't hurting anybody.
As for "antiauthoritarian parenting" my thoughts on parental authority as well as the what the law should be are pretty much one and the same, "do whatever the fuck you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody." The key difference is that parents have a duty to keep their kids from hurting themselves, while the law should be fully unconcerned with purely self-harming actions.
No matter how you look at it, it's significantly more sanitary to use a diaper and throw it away (or
Yeah, shitting in the street should really be the last of all of the deperate options one has.
When it comes to potty training, I'm not certain many parents know how to potty train correctly either. I remember I wasn't very fond of having to go to the toilet either, when I was a kid. It had nothing to do with not wanting to take a crap in the toilet and more with when I was supposed to go opposed to when I had to go.
Potty times usually ended up with me sitting there, bored out of my mind, not having to go, but still trying to proof to my parents that I at least tried. And when I had to go I was convinced I had to sit there for a long time again, making me trying to hold it in for as long as I could, until I was forced to go anyway. Sometimes it worked, sometimes there were accidents. I was never really fond of fixed potty times.
And I guess that's what is going wrong most of the time. Kids being sat on the pot and expected to do their business on command. It only works if the kid really has to go, it never works if the kid doesn't have to go.
Well, there is this other trend called "elimination communication", where parents try to get cues from their babies/kids. They can be quite sublte, but when picked up in time result with the kid sitting on the potty, doing his or her business there. Forcing kids to go at specific times doesn't work with all kids, but getting kids in time to the toilet makes them associate toilets with whatever kind of business they have to do, making them more aware of their needs and wanting to go to the potty whenever they have to go. That's the result parents want to achieve, but most laught about elimination communication, saying it's more the kids training their parents to act than the parents train their kids. That's obviously not true, but well...
As for antiauthoritarian parenting, it will eventually fail, horribly even, as kids learn to respect boundaries placed on them by their parents as well as teachers and others. I don't say any boundary is clever or right or beneficial, as there might as well be quite stupid ones, but it's both important, the process of learning to respect boundaries, as well as to be protected by some of them. Otherwise kids will end up acting like spoiled brats because they never learned how to properly deal with boundaries or people saying "no" to them, which is quite harmful to them in the long run.
Yeah, shitting in the street should really be the last of all of the deperate options one has. When
You can teach kids to listen to other adults in order to keep the peace without teaching them that the other adults are correct. "Because I said so" is complete and utter bullshit, and I'd never say that to any kid. Yes, kids need to know that many adults don't respect them as people, so will say those BS things, and that it's in their best interests to listen to them, but that doesn't mean the parents themselves have to be like that. If you really can't think of a good reason why you're saying "no," you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. Yes, of course kids need to be taught that they can't just have everything they want, but they need to be reasoned with rather than just ordered around and shut-down.
People should absolutely be able to do what pleases them as long as it harms nobody. I would never teach my kids anything different, however I'd also be sure to teach them that not everybody thinks that way and that it's usually better to keep the peace rather than take a stand, especially when it comes to school or work.
You can teach kids to listen to other adults in order to keep the peace without teaching them that t
True, but there is one obstacle: Sometimes the reason for a "no" can be way to complicated to explain, so parents might end up with a "because I said so" just to spare themself an argument about the reason. For example, a kid who might want to join their parents on a business trip might be told "no", as the trip isn't for their recreation and joy. It could be quite convoluted to explain the true nature of the trip to a little kid, so a "because I said so" stops an endless chain of "why?" questions back in the track. But I agree, there should follow an explanation later on, when there is time.
God (I don't even believe in) knows how often I heard "I'll tell you, when you are older" when I was a kid, and I never ever got a follow up to whatever we talked about. Well, I forgot eventually, it wasn't important anyway, it wasn't interesting enough to remember, but if happened often enough to remember that dreaded phrase.
I agree, the freedom to do whatever pleases one as long as no harm is done or no freedom of others is restricted sounds nice, but even a mindset like this needs a few ground rules. Just to pick a rather extreme example: What if someone says, my freedom to remain alive and unharmed restricts their right to kill me, just because they want to see somebody die? Then we have a conflict in interests that can't be resolved. We have to restrict the freedom of others to a healthy level that makes the world a save and worthwhile place for each and every one of us. As long as everybody plays by the same rules everyone can enjoy a wide set of individual freedoms. And I really don't mind others having fun between consenting partners, as long as the consent is genuine, honest and in no way, shape or form forced.
True, but there is one obstacle: Sometimes the reason for a "no" can be way to complicated to explai
My answer to that is that argument is better than teaching kids bad lessons about accountability. Everyone should be able to explain the decisions they make. The only exception to this is emergencies where action needs to happen immediately, and there's no time for debate. If the kid knows you would only bark orders in a serious situation, they'll be very likely to listen.
Death is harm, no matter how you look at it, so killing is definitely out of the questions unless one can prove that is prevents greater harm. I'm not an anarchist or anything. I think there needs to be laws to protect good individuals from bad individuals..
My answer to that is that argument is better than teaching kids bad lessons about accountability. Ev
I agree with that, decisions should be explained, if it can't happen immediatelly, then it should be happening later.
Sure, there certainly should be some. But they always need to be predefined in order to prevent people trying to see how far they can stretch the rules, trying to find loopholes.
I agree with that, decisions should be explained, if it can't happen immediatelly, then it should be
I've never had any problems with it. Might be a good idea to try it again. (I've only used it on desktop, so if you were trying to use the experimental Android client, that might be why.
Edit: Specifically, I use qtox. I've never tried any other clients.
I've never had any problems with it. Might be a good idea to try it again. (I've only used it on des