Responsible Parenting and the Use of Force by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Holy hell the TSA are calling it "a game!!!" To the children???

You all know how I feel on this TSA issue. I hate it. I think it absolutely vile. I'm not flying with my kids as long as these policies are in place.

Having said that, I feel I should put 3 facts in context. They are still vile, but it is good to know how/when they happened, to know what the other side is saying in defense.

1. The video of the 3 year old yelling "Stop touching me!" was taken 2 years ago by her news reporter father. I had thought it had happened since the AIT scanners/pat downs were introduced, but no--they've been patting down random kids for a while.

http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_stop_touching_
me_tsas_security_patdown_of_3yearold_girl_caught_on_camera_.html

2. The "make it a game" comment came from this video, again made from 2 years ago. In the video, the TSA manager at this airport was interviewed. He made his comment in the context of how to deal with little kids who don't want to behave through screening. It doesn't make it any less stomach-churning, but as far as I know, "make it a game" does not reflect official TSA policy. It was just one TSA employee's thoughts in one interview.

See above link.

3. The strip search of a young boy was made at the father's request, according to the TSA. Doesn't make it less disgusting, but that's their defense. The search video is linked in the link below.

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/11/response-to-young-boy-strip-searched-by.ht
ml

4. TSA says they have modified the pat down process for under 12 year olds, but it is unclear whether the modified pat downs still allow touching genitals.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I find the concept of free-range-kids quite interesting - but given my own experiences as a damn-near-feral, am also more than a little aware that can be taken too far,...

Good parenting is all about Goldilocks balance, not too little, not too much--actually, it's a difficult feat requiring no small amount of wisdom, empathy, compassion, and respect.

My mom once sent me across a very big city (current population of 8 million, don't know what it was back then) on a bus, after dark, by myself to get some medicine for my sick little brother. There was no one else to go.

I was only 8 years old. I made it, though on the way back, a man was following me. I did a few loops and lost him deliberately. Was he following me to make sure I got home safely? Or were his reasons more sinister? I'll never know. What I do know is I lived a small lifetime in those 10 minutes when I was dodging him in the shadows.

Contrast this to what happened just a year later, when I was 9. I was sent to the corner mom-and-pop store just one block away in broad daylight. I had run that errand a dozen times. On the way home, a man in the empty apartment lobby asked if I knew which apt so-and-so lived. Before I knew it, he was molesting me rather violently (and this is the normal usage of the word "violent"). I yelled and he ran away. His molestation only lasted 10-15 seconds, but it was unspeakably traumatic for me.

What's the difference? In the second situation, I had let my guard down. I was close to home, it was daytime, I wasn't suspicious of everyone I saw--the way I was when I went out at night. I would have never stopped to hear what a stranger had to ask at night in an abandoned space. If I had only used the same rules during the day, I think I would have been spared that trauma.

Later, when I was 12 and older, I would spend hours alone walking all over town, talking to strangers (this was in a different big city), selling desserts and snacks out of a hand basket to help with the family expenses. But see, by then I had learned my lesson. It is not about the blanket rule of "never talk to strangers." It is about having your wits about you, using your intuition at all times, behavior profiling everyone you see in the periphery of your vision.

But see, because I did all these things, I developed tools that allow me to travel independently today. There are not very many places that I am afraid to go to.

Would I allow my kids out alone in the street, whether it be a block away or across the city, during the day or at night? It depends on the setting and the probability of harm. It depends on the kid, how much self-defense ability, environment awareness, and street wisdom the kid has, how ready and confident the kid feels. For me, it is not about age readiness. It is about skill readiness. If I've done my job correctly and have taught my kids enough skills, yes, they are ready to go out into the world to test and use those skills.

It's a fine line between too much coddling and premature independence. We as parents have to make that difficult judgment every day until the kids are truly independent.

Retta Fontana sounds very cool. In fact, she sounds a lot like you, Frem, only prettier.

I'll have to take some time to read her stuff instead of Cracked.com . Hehe.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 7:03 AM

Well, it's been going on longer than that.

See, just like I pointed out with "Enhanced Interrogation" - they'd been doing that shit to children for YEARS via the Hellcamps, but when they started doing it to Adults - that's when the lid came off, yes ?

This is the same fucking thing.
Everything I Need to Know About the TSA I Learned in High School
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cuthbert/cuthbert14.1.html

The only difference is now they're doing it to Adults, and in front of Adults - many of whom avoid ever visiting their childs school because of the subconscious fear and hatred bordering on mild PTSD they feel whenever coming near that environment, something NO ONE ever wants to talk about when the discussion comes round to lack of parental involvement with a childs schooling.

So, to quote my much younger self and channel a bit of the youthful rage I keep handy to remind me why I do what I do...
"So, hows it taste when it's YOU under the hammer ?!"

I warned people that such treatment of children is often a test bed for applying it to adults, and so it was with "Enhanced Interrogation" - in fact where the hell do you think we got most of those merry little torturers who are quite happy to be on the dishing-out end of the transaction, but the very Hellcamps which were the testing ground for such tactics ?

You know what this TSA shit really is ?
Why, it's the same Zero-Tolerance bullshit we've been ramming down the throats of our children, only now it's getting applied to *US*, and it doesn't taste too good when it's YOU, does it ?

Same with the surveillence, where the hell do you think that started - didn't the Lower Merion fiasco make you wonder, at all ?
Especially when Microsoft (who is oh-so-trustworthy, right?) has set up their Kinect unit to do much the same thing, to YOU ?
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-denies-kinect-spys-on-users-for-tar
geted-advertising-campaigns/
http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/171885-xbox-kinect-is-spying-on-y
ou/

See a pattern here, folks ?

The powers that be test out this crap on children first because socially and legally they're considered subhuman - and if they get away with it, sooner or later, they'll do it to you.

NOW do you get why I consider that front line to be so goddamned important ?

Not to mention that by repeated applications of this kind of abuse (and it IS abuse) the kids become inured and desensitized to it, thus ensuring a lack of resistence when they grow old enough to be subjected to it as adults.

And yet as repulsive as the situation is, it also offers a unique opportunity to reach across the generation gap and make allies of the very folk we've been making enemies of for all too many years.

Our own children.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The powers that be test out this crap on children first because socially and legally they're considered subhuman - and if they get away with it, sooner or later, they'll do it to you.

NOW do you get why I consider that front line to be so goddamned important ?

Certainly, I get it.

I know my harping on my stupid definition of violence is getting on everyone's nerves. But the reason I'm sticking to my guns is the reason this thread started in the first place.

The parenting model is analogous to the governing model. The definition of violence I use towards children, is the definition I use towards citizens.

Anthony's story is very telling. The definitions his dad used for private property influenced his political ideology later. How I define violence, I believe, will influence my kids later as citizens too. Hopefully, it will teach them to not take any kind of force against one's will lightly, to respect the gravity of accepting and using physical force.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 1:51 PM

"And yes, I find the concept of free-range-kids quite interesting - but given my own experiences as a damn-near-feral, am also more than a little aware that can be taken too far, for most of my life parental support of any direct kind was outright *unavailable*, and thus am unlikely to call for aid even when I should."

And you know balance is sometimes what appears to be missing in a lot of discussion about a lot of things these days.

The balance between responsible parenting, ie caring for your children and keeping them safe and wrapping them in cotton wool and never letting them take risks.

The balance between letting your kids do exactly as they please and punitive punishments whenever they don't

And to extend it some what further...the balance between being a lawless society and a totalitarian state, or the balance between having no security because that would infringe someones civil rights and having aiport security akin to a maximum security prison.

Sometimes I see this in the arguments here, particularly CTS, that there is no middle ground, no balance, in the kind of laws = violence, all making a child do what they don't want = violence.

I see this argument used constantly, and it puzzles me - just because everything is on a continuum doesn't mean for example - public health - next step totalitarian government control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 4:52 PM

So... apparently all of us have reached mutual accord on the notion of "The Goldilocks Balance", while acknowledging that it may be somewhat different for each child as an individual ?

Cause that is a pretty good place to start with.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 3, 2010 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So... apparently all of us have reached mutual accord on the notion of "The Goldilocks Balance", while acknowledging that it may be somewhat different for each child as an individual ?

I brought up the notion of a Goldilocks balance on this thread, so certainly I am in agreement.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Sometimes I see this in the arguments here, particularly CTS, that there is no middle ground, no balance, in the kind of laws = violence, all making a child do what they don't want = violence.

This is an issue of terminology, not an issue of balance.

For me, "violence" is a more morally neutral word. All laws lie in the spectrum of violence, with minimal violence on one end to extreme violence on the other. I want JUST enough laws/violence to keep the violent crimes in check, and not any more.

For you, "violence" is a more immoral, oppressive word. If laws = violence, then laws = immorality. So you define some laws, the "good" laws, as non-violent or minimally violent. In your terminology then, laws lie in the spectrum with "good" laws on one end and totalitarian laws on the other. You want JUST enough "good" laws before they cross the totalitarian threshold. (Correct me, of course, if I understood wrong.)

As you see, we both want balance, just on different scales.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:48 PM

Frem,

I finally got around to reading all the of Retta Fontana links you posted. I love her. She's amazing. I wish I could write like that.

Thank you for sharing.

Quote:
I believe children have a right to liberty and happiness--their own happiness. Is the human desire for freedom in a child less valid because they are younger and closer to their core? To force conformity on a child by going to day prison (school) for 12 years in hopes that they will get into a good college, and then into a good job so that someday they'll be happy, is insane. A free child with enough to eat and a nurturing home is already as happy as anyone can get. If they should become unhappy, they make adjustments until they become happy once again.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/fontana/fontana17.html

My 10 year old and I are having a very cool discussion of anarchist parenting because of this.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Sometimes I see this in the arguments here, particularly CTS, that there is no middle ground, no balance, in the kind of laws = violence, all making a child do what they don't want = violence.
This is an issue of terminology, not an issue of balance.

For me, "violence" is a more morally neutral word. All laws lie in the spectrum of violence, with minimal violence on one end to extreme violence on the other. I want JUST enough laws/violence to keep the violent crimes in check, and not any more.

For you, "violence" is a more immoral, oppressive word. If laws = violence, then laws = immorality. So you define some laws, the "good" laws, as non-violent or minimally violent. In your terminology then, laws lie in the spectrum with "good" laws on one end and totalitarian laws on the other. You want JUST enough "good" laws before they cross the totalitarian threshold. (Correct me, of course, if I understood wrong.)

As you see, we both want balance, just on different scales.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

I guess I am being a pendant about language, I freely admit it. So I'm not so much concerned with the morality of the words, as the actual misuse of them. There is simply no need to make 'violence' a morally neutral word that can apply to any number and range of situations, when we have a variety of words that better explain those situations. That's the beauty of English, it contains nuances, so that we can better understand each others meaning.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:57 PM

CTS: One especially reasonant bit of that is something Retta mentions that my mother understood in conceptual form long before the rest of society did, although she likely thought it simply an individual quirk.

Quote:
Nothing real blooms 24/7/365. There are days, weeks and months of simple 'root work' for me in which things appear to be lifeless, or actually moving in reverse. Doing nothing can be very constructive, like perennials doing their root work down in the dark depths of winter. Regardless of how it looks or what you think, they will bloom again when their time comes. Do humans have any less wisdom and depth?

I got three stages of doin things, step one is information gathering, and when I got enough, there's a very disciplined, methodical sort-and-compare going on, much like assembling a puzzle once you have the corners and borders set - but it's all wholly internal and I've never much felt the need to discuss it with anyone else while it's in process, because I'm *BUSY*, right ?

Only, from outside it looks a hell of a lot like plain hedonistic slacking - although shoving all my puzzle pieces off the table into a heap by interrupting the process by demanding/forcing me to *DO* something will wreck the process utterly and force me to start anew, and for a fact will not leave me too damn happy about it.

And yeah, verily, I caught a lot of shit about it from folk who did not understand, didn't try to understand, being dubbed a slacker, a lazy bastard, and all manner of hasslement tended to ensue and wreck up anything I tried to do - just one more reason to stay the hell away from other people, far as I was concerned.

The very rare few who have had the good sense to leave well the hell enough alone however, have seen a thing of wonder that the former wouldn't believe even if you showed it to them - step three.

Quote:
Like their fellow SPs, ISTPs are fundamentally Performers (note the capital 'P' :-)), but as Ts their areas of interest tend to be mechanical rather than artistic like those of ISFPs, and unlike most ESPs they do not present an impression of constant activity. On the contrary, they lie dormant, saving their energy until a project or an adventure worthy of their time comes along--and then they launch themselves at it. The apparently frenzied state that inevitably ensues is actually much more controlled than it appears--ISTPs always seem to know what they're doing when it comes to physical or mechanical obstacles--but the whole chain of events presents a confusing and paradoxical picture to an outsider.

http://typelogic.com/istp.html
Despite our differences, this is one thing my ex *did* understand, for it was she that gifted me with a red satin half-cape and the monniker "Dynamo" - because when she needed a miracle, all she had to do was dump the situation into my lap, provide all the information she could, and then leave me the hell alone - which went heavily against her workaholic nature, but paid off so effectively she'd just grit her teeth and wind her fingers and keep her two cents out of it...

Of course, she believes there's a metaphysical component to it too, as she has said she can practically feel the charge-up, the energy being gathered, and is quite firmly convinced that some of the events of those classic mad-scientist rampages were not, strictly speaking, physically possible.

One of my all-time favorite representations of that is here.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20070523
(Page 38-45)

Moral of this Post: Just cause someone isn't physically slaving away, one shouldn't assume they're not doing something, or accomplishing something - it is that attitude which has lead to a severe LACK of desperately needed introspection amongst our youth, and a much shorter and less useful attention span, given that they're never allowed time to develop it since any attempt to do so results in accusations of slackerhood and indolence.

Of course, re-examining WHY those being enriched by us marching on the treadmills for em every second would want us to be that way is also a good idea, yes ?

-Frem

PS. Yes, I am ISTP - was this in any way not bloody obvious ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:06 PM

We keep busy to stop us from thinking? Is that it in a nutshell, Frem? DOing nothing is vastly unrelated in my view.

I'd also say that the jobs I've had that were the most mindlessly repetitive and without much human contact were the best for my creativity, strangely enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:57 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"That's the beauty of English, it contains nuances, so that we can better understand each others meaning."

Hello,

My language has an awesome ability to reveal truth, rivaled only by its ability to obfuscate.

It's what you believe and do that is important. Anyway, this thread was never meant to be about what the definition of is, is.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 4, 2010 4:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"That's the beauty of English, it contains nuances, so that we can better understand each others meaning."

Hello,

My language has an awesome ability to reveal truth, rivaled only by its ability to obfuscate.

It's what you believe and do that is important. Anyway, this thread was never meant to be about what the definition of is, is.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Too true, Anthony. That's why I think discussions around meaning are important ones. Didn't intend it to become a thread hijack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 5, 2010 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Moral of this Post: Just cause someone isn't physically slaving away, one shouldn't assume they're not doing something, or accomplishing something - it is that attitude which has lead to a severe LACK of desperately needed introspection amongst our youth, and a much shorter and less useful attention span, given that they're never allowed time to develop it since any attempt to do so results in accusations of slackerhood and indolence.

This is especially important to remember with unschoolers.

People here in Peru don't homeschool. It just isn't done. They've never heard of it. They see my kids playing and lounging and playing. It bothers them. They keep suggesting, gently but persistently, that I should put my kids in school.

Yesterday, my 6 year old solved strategy problems for guiding a smiley face into its circle that stumped me. Over and over again. (OK, I'm not very bright, but still....) All people see is that he's playing.

http://www.roundgames.com/game/Splitter

Yeah, Frem, you're a textbook ISTP. Though, I might have pegged you for F from time to time.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 8:34 AM

Quote:
Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
-V

Actually I think it's very important to hash out the meaning of a term, especially in a day and age of NewSpeak DoubleTalk like ours...

But not just that, I notice often here how several people in a thread can be using the same term, and yet each of them has a different MEANING behind it, which has all too often lead to unnecessary argument.

So if we're gonna discuss force versus violence versus influence - we really do need to be on the same page as to what each of us means with them.
For mine own, as I said, I don't bother with the specifics cause I know harm when I see it.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For mine own, as I said, I don't bother with the specifics cause I know harm when I see it.

So you define violence in terms of harm? No harm, no violence?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 6, 2010 1:49 PM