Would Jesus condone corporal punishment?

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Because in real  life, this happens.

...

Three is on the borderline but, as stated, we were allowed to roam a large back yard basically from  when we could walk.

While it is true this happens. It is also true it is neglect. If that 3 or 4 year old, who probably has zero swimming ability, goes into the river and dies, the parents will be 100% blames, this is true today and 50 years ago.

True allowing small children in a yard is normal, but not next to a road, or river.

Quote

Things we did included; playing in the  sand pit, using the homemade swings, slippery dip, and see saw,   collecting  duck eggs, picking fruit and veges to eat, climbing  a smallish tree, (or the lower parts of a very big one)  making dams, roads and playing with toys,   

I did all those same things, but when I was 8, not 3. A three year old boy usually cant even speak well. I know my nephew cant. He also in incapable of identifying danger that he's not seen before, where as a 8 or 9 year old can. 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Absolutely. But there is keeping a child locked away, and there is letting them learn. It appears we both want them to learn. I think perhaps it is a matter of how much protecting is done we're actually discussing.

Obviously I'm not giving a 3 year old a steak knife and letting them experiment. But, I might let them hold the handle as I use it to cut some veggies. Training them is what I advocate. And not completely shielding them.

I've seen completely shielded people and as adults they generally have a harder time and require much "help".

That said, I still blame the mom. 

“Adults are the front line of protection for children. We are accountable  and responsible for creating a protected and loving environment inside and outside the home. Our schools and neighborhoods the areas we live in are also responsible for making it a safe and kid friendly place, the reason for this protection is so our children can first of all survive, grow up, learn and develop to the fullest potential.”

I was a stay at home mom, in our neighborhood on my street there were  kids who were left alone due to parents working, I knew who they were and I opened my home to them for my boys. I looked out for these kids and I am not  sure if the parents  ever knew or cared. There were 2 boys in particular Jay Jay and Paul (real names) that were always around and I fed them and helped with homework who both came back years later to find me and tell me how much it helped that they had a place to go.

No where in this does it advocate keeping kids from learning or being kids. 

 

 

 

 

[+Desertrat56]

23 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Absolutely. But there is keeping a child locked away, and there is letting them learn. It appears we both want them to learn. I think perhaps it is a matter of how much protecting is done we're actually discussing.

Obviously I'm not giving a 3 year old a steak knife and letting them experiment. But, I might let them hold the handle as I use it to cut some veggies. Training them is what I advocate. And not completely shielding them.

I've seen completely shielded people and as adults they generally have a harder time and require much "help".

That said, I still blame the mom. 

I remember in basic training the colonel had an inspection and asked a woman what the hardest thing for her was in basic training and she said "Making my bed, sir."  He said in a snotty tone, "Did your mommy make your bed for you at home?" and she replied, "No, sir.  The maid did."   We all broke attention laughing.   He could not win.  That question was after he had asked me how I liked my army glasses, which the reply was, "I can't see, sir." and then he made some stupid comment about how my shoes must be comfortable because they were so big.    He was a total idiot and should not have been talking to women at all.

But your point about some people not knowing how to take care of themselves is a good one.  I had the extreme the other way but some do, even in the 60's, did, get coddled or over protected and did not learn how to take care of themselves.

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

While it is true this happens. It is also true it is neglect. If that 3 or 4 year old, who probably has zero swimming ability, goes into the river and dies, the parents will be 100% blames, this is true today and 50 years ago.

True allowing small children in a yard is normal, but not next to a road, or river.

I did all those same things, but when I was 8, not 3. A three year old boy usually cant even speak well. I know my nephew cant. He also in incapable of identifying danger that he's not seen before, where as a 8 or 9 year old can. 

 

 

Exactly, it would be unheard of and neglectful to allow your child of 3 be around a pool in the context Walker claims.

A child has no ability to look out for themselves it is just that basic.

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I wouldn't punish the child.  The natural consequence of disobedience was severe enough 

However for example in our family we do NOT remove fragile and precious things from a childs reach We teach them not to touch them 

Never had anything broken yet 

I understand why all pools in australia must  be childproofed. But, again, it would never have been needed in our family 

we would have been trained and disciplined from an early age not to go near the pool, and /or taught to survive if we fell in 

We never had a pool, but played and swam on a beach from infancy . for at least 100 days out of a year. 

That is my point.

Parents cannot childproof the world, or even their home, and really that shouldn't be their aim.

The aim should be to teach a child from infancy not to do things which are dangerous (of course for a while a child needs supervision but we had a 3/4 acre yard and roamed it freely as soon as we could walk )  There was a fence and a gate but they were not locked even though we were on a busy road We were trained not to go out of the yard  We never did (except for my youngest sister who would walk up the road knocking on doors and selling her"paintings" for 20 cents each, when she was a few years old, or dress up in mum's clothes and go 200 yards down to the main shopping street to "go shopping" 

 I reckon that was because mum and dad had gone all soft by then, but she was a most wilful child  

Not surprisingly, she became the multimillionaire in the family, and is now worth probably 100 million aussie dollars  with a house that cost 5 million.. 

Jesus loved children and their innocence.

 I believe he would condone loving discipline of a child, designed to educate it and keep it safe, even as an adult, by giving it strong self  discipline and self control  .  I think he would strongly condemn abuse of any kind, which was designed to crush, not empower a child and simply to make a child obedient.  .

He said the laws were made from  love, to be obeyed in love. ie laws are designed for our safety and protection, by those who care about us.

If no one cared, there would be no push/requirement  for laws (or family rules) , and people could do as they wished  

Walker, proving a safe environment inside and outdoors to promote learning and growth is the aim of a parent.

Question what age were you well trained to know the dangers of a pool?
 

I haven’t hear of anyone ever who wouldn’t take the extra precaution to childproof a pool who would find it offensive and go as far as to imply it is bad parenting.

 

 

[+Sherapy]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Because in real  life, this happens.

Today, we are used to monitoring our kids, even while in bed. My nephew  not only has a camera in his 4 year old's bed room  but a device which detects if he gets out of bed and turns the camera on so they can check if he is ok .

Three is on the borderline but, as stated, we were allowed to roam a large back yard basically from  when we could walk.

Things we did included; playing in the  sand pit, using the homemade swings, slippery dip, and see saw,   collecting  duck eggs, picking fruit and veges to eat, climbing  a smallish tree, (or the lower parts of a very big one)  making dams, roads and playing with toys,   We were also riding tricycles around by then. There were a few minor hazards  ( spiders, lizards and sharp objects mostly) but, by then, we had been taught to identify and avoid them    There was a lot to explore, places to hide and material for cubby houses (and tree houses)  It was the first step in independence, which was followed by being allowed to go up the back lane and into neighbor's houses, and then to going out onto the front road /footpath by ourlseves and riding a push bbike around the town.

We walked or rode a bike to school from about the age of 5   but we could get here, again, down a lane without facing much traffic. Like the front street, the schools were all only a few hundred yard/metres form our front gate  I remember in the mid 60s donkeying my little sister to school on the handlebars of my bike She put her shoe in the front  wheel by mistake and we came a cropper.

However we went to school,anyway,  despite some grazes and bruises 

My smallest sister would hide up in a big pepper  tree when she started school and mum couldn't get her down, so dad told her to squirt my sister with a garden  hose She came down, was captured, and taken to school Not sure if she was allowed to change her clothes, but she has  always been highly fashion conscious, and this might have been the biggest punishment of all, having to go to school bedraggled  

You are describing a 50s Ma and Paw Kettle type of childhood of one who lived in a very small town with little exposure to much. 

While I wouldn’t hose my child out of a tree or have a need too. It didn’t sound like very sophisticated effective parenting. 
It sounds like you had a hard time understanding that your parents wanted you to be honest. Most of your stories from 5 to 13 are issues you had with honesty and impulse control. It doesn’t sound like you matured till you were an adult. 

Sounds Ike you got it together eventually, though. Better late then never.

Thanks for sharing.

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Paranoid Android]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You can see kids as young as 4 or 5 riding scooters or skateboards around the town every day 

Of course the community is helping with the parenting.  Both  now, and when we were kids, someone was watching and knew what the kids were doing (as i do today ) if i see inappropriate behaviour( from unsafe to bullying)  I intervene.

Otherwise i just let them play It is great to see modern children playing the same sort of games, and having the same sorts of adventures i did as a kid,  

 

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Walker, proving a safe environment inside and outdoors to promote learning and growth is the aim of a parent.

Question what age were you well trained to know the dangers of a pool?
 

I haven’t hear of anyone ever who wouldn’t take the extra precaution to childproof a pool who would find it offensive and go as far as to imply it is bad parenting.

Hey guys, glad you two love birds are as agreeable as ever  Lol, only kidding. Anyway, I just wanted to add here an interesting point about modern child rearing. And you are both making valid points. First, random aside - definitely fence off your pools, they save lives! But back on point, at what age children should be allowed out of the house without parental supervision is an interesting topic. There's a statistic that shows that with children born before 1984 ("generation X" and older), parents allowed children out unsupervised almost universally (close to 100%) for the first time around 6-7 years. When I was that old our parents let us out to play street cricket with the neighbours (half the kids in the street played - no adults). We'd wheel out the rubbish bins for wickets and just play in the middle of the road. Everyone was a designated lookout (the older kids taught the younger kids) and first to see a car shouted and the bins got wheeled off the road and we let the car past. Meanwhile, children born after 2003 had a much broader range for when they were let out unsupervised for the first time, 6-11 years old all being represented in large numbers. 

Obviously it's the parent's choice but what is obvious also is that modern parents are more protective. The question is whether this change is a positive or negative one. Oh, as for sources for the above information, it's from the video I linked in my first post in this thread. Sheri and Mr W, you were two of the first people I thought of who would definitely find the video of interest (though I know Mr W prefers to read), even though it's a long one. It's worth it if you have the spare time to watch  

 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Walker, proving a safe environment inside and outdoors to promote learning and growth is the aim of a parent.

Question what age were you well trained to know the dangers of a pool?
 

I haven’t hear of anyone ever who wouldn’t take the extra precaution to childproof a pool who would find it offensive and go as far as to imply it is bad parenting.

 

 

We never had swimming pools when i was a child but we lived on and by the ocean I was trained from birth to know and avoid the dangers of the ocean just like knowing other dangers.

My mind and behaviours were modified through training to know and respond appropriately.

   I cant remember because i was too young but by the time i can remember we would play in the ocean safely  take out small boats to go fishing etc. Usually someone was near but we were not being hovered over.  We did swimming lessons every year from the time we started school  and by the time i was 14 I had qualifications which allowed me to be a qualified life saver at a beach

I support safety fencing but unfortunately many children still die in such pools because they were not trained to  avoid them or given the skills to survive falling in one  That is what i mean.

You CAN NOT always protect a person,  but you can given them the discipline and knowledge to be able to protect themselves.   This doesn't mean a parent shouldn't do all the y can to protect a child but not at the expense of not  allowing some risk taking and thus growth and development . 

[+Sherapy]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Because in real  life, this happens.

Today, we are used to monitoring our kids, even while in bed. My nephew  not only has a camera in his 4 year old's bed room  but a device which detects if he gets out of bed and turns the camera on so they can check if he is ok .

Three is on the borderline but, as stated, we were allowed to roam a large back yard basically from  when we could walk.

Things we did included; playing in the  sand pit, using the homemade swings, slippery dip, and see saw,   collecting  duck eggs, picking fruit and veges to eat, climbing  a smallish tree, (or the lower parts of a very big one)  making dams, roads and playing with toys,   We were also riding tricycles around by then. There were a few minor hazards  ( spiders, lizards and sharp objects mostly) but, by then, we had been taught to identify and avoid them    There was a lot to explore, places to hide and material for cubby houses (and tree houses)  It was the first step in independence, which was followed by being allowed to go up the back lane and into neighbor's houses, and then to going out onto the front road /footpath by ourlseves and riding a push bbike around the town.

We walked or rode a bike to school from about the age of 5   but we could get here, again, down a lane without facing much traffic. Like the front street, the schools were all only a few hundred yard/metres form our front gate  I remember in the mid 60s donkeying my little sister to school on the handlebars of my bike She put her shoe in the front  wheel by mistake and we came a cropper.

However we went to school,anyway,  despite some grazes and bruises 

My smallest sister would hide up in a big pepper  tree when she started school and mum couldn't get her down, so dad told her to squirt my sister with a garden  hose She came down, was captured, and taken to school Not sure if she was allowed to change her clothes, but she has  always been highly fashion conscious, and this might have been the biggest punishment of all, having to go to school bedraggled  

 

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Absolutely. But there is keeping a child locked away, and there is letting them learn. It appears we both want them to learn. I think perhaps it is a matter of how much protecting is done we're actually discussing.

Obviously I'm not giving a 3 year old a steak knife and letting them experiment. But, I might let them hold the handle as I use it to cut some veggies. Training them is what I advocate. And not completely shielding them.

I've seen completely shielded people and as adults they generally have a harder time and require much "help".

That said, I still blame the mom. 

How in the hell can a child be shielded with technology these days? Independence is a no brainer more than ever before. My kids used Uber, had their own bank account and ATM card, managed their money, my kids were taught how to invest money too, all by the time were 15, 16. They paid their little bills with autopay, sold stuff on line, shopped online, worked as soon as they could, got their own jobs. My kids taught me stuff. Lol 

[Mr Walker]

22 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are describing a 50s Ma and Paw Kettle type of childhood of one who lived in a very small town with little exposure to much. 

While I wouldn’t hose my child out of a tree or have a need too. It didn’t sound like very sophisticated effective parenting. 
It sounds like you had a hard time understanding that your parents wanted you to be honest. Most of your stories from 5 to 13 are issues you had with honesty and impulse control. It doesn’t sound like you matured till you were an adult. 

Sounds Ike you got it together eventually, though. Better late then never.

Thanks for sharing.

 

judgemental again with some real cultural biases evident  

Are you saying you  wouldn't let your children climb a tree when the y were ready willing and wanting to? 

How would you stop them? Chop the tree down? 

Having said that i think many fifties parenting practices were better for kids than many current ones  

But it wasnt just small towns.  That s how kids in the main cities lived and played as well.

  You can read newspaper magazine and other accounts of life then 

lol I knew what my parents wanted Sometimes i obeyed but I had my own desires needs and wants as a child eg adventure, excitement,    friendship, exploration and expansion of my boundaries;  and i acted to have those met. Part of growing up is learning self discipline and impulse control but another part is getting your own way and having increased freedom.

parents must balance this carefully.   

 

[+Sherapy]

39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

We never had swimming pools when i was a child but we lived on and by the ocean I was trained from birth to know and avoid the dangers of the ocean just like knowing other dangers.

My mind and behaviours were modified through training to know and respond appropriately.

   I cant remember because i was too young but by the time i can remember we would play in the ocean safely  take out small boats to go fishing etc. Usually someone was near but we were not being hovered over.  We did swimming lessons every year from the time we started school  and by the time i was 14 I had qualifications which allowed me to be a qualified life saver at a beach

I support safety fencing but unfortunately many children still die in such pools because they were not trained to  avoid them or given the skills to survive falling in one  That is what i mean.

You CAN NOT always protect a person,  but you can given them the discipline and knowledge to be able to protect themselves.   This doesn't mean a parent shouldn't do all the y can to protect a child but not at the expense of not  allowing some risk taking and thus growth and development . 

This doesn’t even make sense. From birth you were taught to know and avoid the dangers of the ocean. Your mind was modified through training. Walls, I am not buying it I am calling BS buddy. 
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I am gonna write this off as a big dose of hyperbole. 
 

My No one in their right mind would allow a child of 3 around a pool closely monitored and unsupervised. 

14 years old absolutely, 3 no. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

 

How in the hell can a child be shielded with technology these days? Independence is a no brainer more than ever before. My kids used Uber, had their own bank account and ATM card, managed their money, my kids were taught how to invest money too, all by the time were 15, 16. They paid their little bills with autopay, sold stuff on line, shopped online, worked as soon as they could, got their own jobs. My kids taught me stuff. Lol 

children can be exposed to technologies a t varying degrees over time 

I was a t maccas the other day and saw a 2 year old and a 4 year old totally engrossed on small devices  Thats a parents choice but unnecessary i dont use a mobile phone and really while i wouldn't ban a child from  having one i would control acces to them until a child really needed one  The y become a tool of control for both the child and the parent 

I agree with your points on finance but again it is about freedom and choice,

I rarely buy anything online and i dont own a credit card,  but i use my debit card  every day.I do all my banking transactions and pay my utility and other bills online. 

  I was saving all my life and put a lot of money into savings while i worked holidays from 13 to 18.

identifying and prioritising needs over wants is the most important thing  

 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

judgemental again with some real cultural biases evident  

Are you saying you  wouldn't let your children climb a tree when the y were ready willing and wanting to? 

How would you stop them? Chop the tree down? 

Having said that i think many fifties parenting practices were better for kids than many current ones  

But it wasnt just small towns.  That s how kids in the main cities lived and played as well.

  You can read newspaper magazine and other accounts of life then 

lol I knew what my parents wanted Sometimes i obeyed but I had my own desires needs and wants as a child eg adventure, excitement,    friendship, exploration and expansion of my boundaries;  and i acted to have those met. Part of growing up is learning self discipline and impulse control but another part is getting your own way and having increased freedom.

parents must balance this carefully.   

 

I wouldn’t hose my child out of a tree and send them to school bedraggled. 
This is what you said and I am responding to it. It is my opinion. 

For me, It is unsophisticated parenting. I wonder if CPS would see it as harmful these days.
You make a good point the kid must be considered too, Perhaps your folks could have balanced your needs and theirs a bit better. 

Of course my kids climbed trees. Lol 
 

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

children can be exposed to technologies a t varying degrees over time 

I was a t maccas the other day and saw a 2 year old and a 4 year old totally engrossed on small devices  Thats a parents choice but unnecessary i dont use a mobile phone and really while i wouldn't ban a child from  having one i would control acces to them until a child really needed one  The y become a tool of control for both the child and the parent 

I agree with your points on finance but again it is about freedom and choice,

I rarely buy anything online and i dont own a credit card,  but i use my debit card  every day.I do all my banking transactions and pay my utility and other bills online. 

  I was saving all my life and put a lot of money into savings while i worked holidays from 13 to 18.

identifying and prioritising needs over wants is the most important thing  

 

Technology was a wonderful experience for my kids and I embraced it and allowed them too also. It was wonderful it was one of the greatest teaching tools available. 
We are taking a highly dependent being and helping them to be an independent autonomous adult. It was very useful. 
 
I think it is the right of the parent to decide when and how much exposure they want from technology, I think it depends on the kids too. It helped us keep track of our kids especially as teens.

For me, my kids demonstrated the maturity so it was a no brainer. 

It was gvien with the understanding that it was a privilege not a right and that if it was abused it would be taken.

It never got to that though. My youngest son thought social media was silly so he never was on the sites. My middle son was on everything. I even was okay with their right to privacy kids need their own space too, but my son wanted me on his social media he said he was proud of his mom. Go figure, Kids are different they surprise ya. 
 Two of my boys have met their serious relationships on Tinder too. So have lots of my friends kids. I was a bit unsure about online dating but it is the way these kids meet now. I have seen so many good outcomes. Who would have thought.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Paranoid Android]

22 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Two of my boys have met their serious relationships on Tinder too. So have lots of my friends kids. I was a bit unsure about online dating but it is the way these kids meet now. I have seen so many good outcomes. Who would have thought.

So glad your kids are going well. It worked great for me too. When I was ready to get back into the dating scene after I split with my fiancee I realised I had no idea how to date anymore. So I tried Tinder, and now I'm trying to start a family (no kids yet, wish me luck aye) and looking to buy a home with the best woman on the planet  

[+Sherapy]

21 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So glad your kids are going well. It worked great for me too. When I was ready to get back into the dating scene after I split with my fiancee I realised I had no idea how to date anymore. So I tried Tinder, and now I'm trying to start a family (no kids yet, wish me luck aye) and looking to buy a home with the best woman on the planet  

Awwww, Robbie, I can’t wait for you to be a Dad. You will be amazing. 
I am waiting for the same on my end, my middle son and his lady are planning to get married as soon as the finish school one year from now, an interesting aside this started out long distant. My son is in the MidWest finishing his Masters and working as a Football Recruiter, his lady love was here in CA, she recently moved to where my son is after she finished school. It was kool too that her and I got close my son literally told her call my mom you will like her and she did, we have become close. I really see Tinder as a good thing. 
 

 Congrats my online son. so proud of you many of us watched you grow up online. If you need a grandma let me know. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

Hey guys, glad you two love birds are as agreeable as ever  Lol, only kidding. Anyway, I just wanted to add here an interesting point about modern child rearing. And you are both making valid points. First, random aside - definitely fence off your pools, they save lives! But back on point, at what age children should be allowed out of the house without parental supervision is an interesting topic. There's a statistic that shows that with children born before 1984 ("generation X" and older), parents allowed children out unsupervised almost universally (close to 100%) for the first time around 6-7 years. When I was that old our parents let us out to play street cricket with the neighbours (half the kids in the street played - no adults). We'd wheel out the rubbish bins for wickets and just play in the middle of the road. Everyone was a designated lookout (the older kids taught the younger kids) and first to see a car shouted and the bins got wheeled off the road and we let the car past. Meanwhile, children born after 2003 had a much broader range for when they were let out unsupervised for the first time, 6-11 years old all being represented in large numbers. 

Obviously it's the parent's choice but what is obvious also is that modern parents are more protective. The question is whether this change is a positive or negative one. Oh, as for sources for the above information, it's from the video I linked in my first post in this thread. Sheri and Mr W, you were two of the first people I thought of who would definitely find the video of interest (though I know Mr W prefers to read), even though it's a long one. It's worth it if you have the spare time to watch  

 

 

 

Thank you, I will watch this later at work. Can’t wait, I am thinking Walls can’t play videos on his computer. 

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

 

How in the hell can a child be shielded with technology these days? Independence is a no brainer more than ever before. My kids used Uber, had their own bank account and ATM card, managed their money, my kids were taught how to invest money too, all by the time were 15, 16. They paid their little bills with autopay, sold stuff on line, shopped online, worked as soon as they could, got their own jobs. My kids taught me stuff. Lol 

Children can be shielded by access. My 12 year old has a phone, but it only calls and texts, no internet, and the numbers she can do so with are coded into it.

Also there are programs to shield children. Sure they'll eventually beat them, but the whole point is to protect till ready.

It is possible, at least with little ones to partially, or completely, shield them from technology. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by DieChecker

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Children can be shielded by access. My 12 year old has a phone, but it only calls and texts, no internet, and the numbers she can do so with are coded into it.

Also there are programs to shield children. Sure they'll eventually beat them, but the whole point is to protect till ready.

It is possible, at least with little ones to partially, or completely, shield them from technology. 

Ah gotcha. 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

This doesn’t even make sense. From birth you were taught to know and avoid the dangers of the ocean. Your mind was modified through training. 
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 
 

No one in their right mind would allow a child of 3 around a pool closely monitored and unsupervised. 

14 years old absolutely, 3 no. 

That depends how well the child was trained and how it behaved I was exposed to the ocean  (on calm shallow shorelines)  from birth. Ii was taught safe practice and how to swim from  before I can actually remember.  I never feared the sea and lived a lot of my life in it.

Its evolutionary  progress,but  it requires training from  birth. Can you remember how you were taught to walk or talk ? No , neither can I, but by the time i could walk and talk i could float and swim in the sea  so that my first memories involve not just walking but swimming/playing in water below my chin We were taught very young not not go beyond our depth, and the blue line where seagrass began was off limits as young children 

You can train even very young children to stay alive in a swimming pool if they fall in This should be done in a non traumatic way, slowly and gently,  but can be very successful. This has become contentious in recent years but is one way to help your child survive.

 https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/infant-swimming

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I wouldn’t hose my child out of a tree and send them to school bedraggled. 
This is what you said and I am responding to it. It is my opinion. 

For me, It is unsophisticated parenting. I wonder if CPS would see it as harmful these days.
You make a good point the kid must be considered too, Perhaps your folks could have balanced your needs and theirs a bit better. 

Of course my kids climbed trees. Lol 
 

 

Of course you wouldn't. You would have left them up the tree until they learned they could avoid school, by staying up there until dad came home to climb the tree and get them down   

I wonder what cps would say about a child who never went to school, because they stayed up a tree all day   heck today a parent might get cautioned for letting a child walk to school in the rain. We had no other choice

Adults needs come first because adults have responsibilities and duties, but also because adults are the wise educated ones, and the ones with an abilty to change things.

  Children's needs should be considered but should be subordinate to adults,  family needs, and community requirements.  So as a simple thing, meal times are when it is best for adults. if a parent has to go somewhere or do something then a child may have no choice but to go with them 

Kids can be fed snacks if required but  meals should fit into parent's requirements. Same for bed times and getting up times. These need to be prioritised on the adult's needs and the the family's  overall needs.  When i got a little older I could  get quietly  out of bed and go out  to play before anyone else was awake  but i wasn't allowed to wake a parent and demand food or attention, or to wake up younger siblings.

Our parents met all our needs ( physical and psychological) We never went cold wet or hungry and were never made to feel inadequate, bad, or dumb.

  That was their prime responsibility. However the y saw no need, nor were they  able, to meet all our wants, although they did their best.  Rather the y taught us to want only what we could have, and to work towards getting what we wanted.     

Edited January 8, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Technology was a wonderful experience for my kids and I embraced it and allowed them too also. It was wonderful it was one of the greatest teaching tools available. 
We are taking a highly dependent being and helping them to be an independent autonomous adult. It was very useful. 
 
I think it is the right of the parent to decide when and how much exposure they want from technology, I think it depends on the kids too. It helped us keep track of our kids especially as teens.

For me, my kids demonstrated the maturity so it was a no brainer. 

It was gvien with the understanding that it was a privilege not a right and that if it was abused it would be taken.

It never got to that though. My youngest son thought social media was silly so he never was on the sites. My middle son was on everything. I even was okay with their right to privacy kids need their own space too, but my son wanted me on his social media he said he was proud of his mom. Go figure, Kids are different they surprise ya. 
 Two of my boys have met their serious relationships on Tinder too. So have lots of my friends kids. I was a bit unsure about online dating but it is the way these kids meet now. I have seen so many good outcomes. Who would have thought.

And yet it is one of the biggest causes of bullying, anxiety, stress,  and depression, in young people.

  It exposes young people to violence and pornography and encourages sexism and disrespect of women.

However i agree with you.  Given common sense and safeguards it can be a useful, even essential, tool .My wife is almost 80 and uses the internet for all sorts of things, from her reading, all her music, movies etc.   social contacts and banking. However she does not use facebook and neither of us use instagram or any of the more problematic social networks.  Becsue of her stroke she uses a more  physically manageable and accessible  mobile phone, rather than our landline, but i mostly use the landline which is free anywhere in Australia Ie ican make unlimited calls anywhere in Australia for as long as i like completely  free To do that on a mobile plan costs about 30 dollars a month  without any data .  

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

Hey guys, glad you two love birds are as agreeable as ever  Lol, only kidding. Anyway, I just wanted to add here an interesting point about modern child rearing. And you are both making valid points. First, random aside - definitely fence off your pools, they save lives! But back on point, at what age children should be allowed out of the house without parental supervision is an interesting topic. There's a statistic that shows that with children born before 1984 ("generation X" and older), parents allowed children out unsupervised almost universally (close to 100%) for the first time around 6-7 years. When I was that old our parents let us out to play street cricket with the neighbours (half the kids in the street played - no adults). We'd wheel out the rubbish bins for wickets and just play in the middle of the road. Everyone was a designated lookout (the older kids taught the younger kids) and first to see a car shouted and the bins got wheeled off the road and we let the car past. Meanwhile, children born after 2003 had a much broader range for when they were let out unsupervised for the first time, 6-11 years old all being represented in large numbers. 

Obviously it's the parent's choice but what is obvious also is that modern parents are more protective. The question is whether this change is a positive or negative one. Oh, as for sources for the above information, it's from the video I linked in my first post in this thread. Sheri and Mr W, you were two of the first people I thought of who would definitely find the video of interest (though I know Mr W prefers to read), even though it's a long one. It's worth it if you have the spare time to watch  

 

 

 

i will see if i can find, and play it, on my tablet   Easy peasy I will go and listen to it now before i have to get my wife her lunch.

scary stuff  but sometimes, if it wasn't scary, it would be laughable. 

IMO those students should be removed from the university and some charged  with criminal assault etc.

The rest of his points are excellent (but of course have been known for all my life ) eg his points about play and risk taking as necessary  for growth.

eg its important to have playgrounds where kids can be hurt, otherwise they don't learn how NOT to get hurt

Edited January 8, 2020 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And yet it is one of the biggest causes of bullying, anxiety, stress,  and depression, in young people.

  It exposes young people to violence and pornography and encourages sexism and disrespect of women.

However i agree with you.  Given common sense and safeguards it can be a useful, even essential, tool .My wife is almost 80 and uses the internet for all sorts of things, from her reading, all her music, movies etc.   social contacts and banking. However she does not use facebook and neither of us use instagram or any of the more problematic social networks.  Becsue of her stroke she uses a more  physically manageable and accessible  mobile phone, rather than our landline, but i mostly use the landline which is free anywhere in Australia Ie ican make unlimited calls anywhere in Australia for as long as i like completely  free To do that on a mobile plan costs about 30 dollars a month  without any data .  

We didn’t have these issues with the internet, the computer was always out in the open this remained this way until my kids graduated, it just worked out that way, 

Certainly a parent has to monitor and quite frankly I don’t know any who didn’t know what was going on with their kids. We had all kinds of ways to keep an eye on our kids on social media. 

 

[Mr Walker]

14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

We didn’t have these issues with the internet, the computer was always out in the open this remained this way until my kids graduated, it just worked out that way, 

Certainly a parent has to monitor and quite frankly I don’t know any who didn’t know what was going on with their kids. We had all kinds of ways to keep an eye on our kids on social media. 

 

Its not so much computers but mobile phones with unlimited data.

These become tools for social manipulation, bullying, sexual harassment, and placing kids under unnecessary pressures to "act like other young people"

Young people today can never escape bullying or harassment  or sexual predators (often from their own age group) because their phone is with them all the time

ps so your kids never set up fake accounts for parents and family to see and then real ones which the y used with friends and other young people?   They never hid apps and other sites from you or removed their browser history ? (How would you know if they did, anyway?) 

You were smarter than your kids when it came to social media, and  you  would always know what they were really doing?  Your boys were maybe a bit too old to have this modern experience and anyway they were boys. Girls seem to be most at risk of both psychological suffering (from bullying etc)  and sexual predation  They are more at risk from peer group pressure also,  because belonging, and being liked /accepted, is more important to them 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Mr Walker