Comment Re:Backstory? (Score 2, Informative) 51
Haha, way to drive people away
Well he shouldn't call something "obscure" just because he's too lazy to read it, and wants someone else to tell him what it said.
Haha, way to drive people away
Well he shouldn't call something "obscure" just because he's too lazy to read it, and wants someone else to tell him what it said.
So what's the backstory behind this for those of us who dont read obscure blogspot blogs.
Obscure? You calling my blog obscure?
There is no "backstory". Just read the front story.
From my point of view, it seems that a lot of parents often forget that children can be very different, even at the same age. It's easy to say "yes, of course the same thing won't work with every child!", but it seems that often people will stop right there, and not consider the reason that some children are different and that the answer "just try Y instead of X" isn't always an option
This is true to an extent. There are a lot of differences among children, and anything you do has to be tailored to the nature and personality of your child.. However, there are also a lot of similarities. Children respond well overall to limts being set and enforced. So set limits. Explain the limits.Enforce them. Explain again (after they're enforced). Because if you don't enforce them, you teach that your limits aren't really limts at all, and they keep pushing them further out. It doesn't mean they won't push them anyway[1] but a consistent response means they know how far they *can* push and what's ok.[2]
When I was a kid (I'm 35), TV time was very limited, especially during the day when there were other things we could do. When we finally got a computer, time on it was limited as well. I even remember wanting to be outside with my Dad over watching daytime cartoons or whatever. It's not choosing the great outdoors over technology, and I hope you realize this.
Of course I do, and that is a valid point. My son is an active boy, but even so I understand that were the choice different - for example, TV with Dad vs outside with Dad - the answer might be different as well. Because when it's "with Dad" in either case, it boils down to whatever the child prefers to do. But my point was that to encourage time outside, I don't give the choice of TV with Dad in most cases. Instead it's time [by himself] using electronics, or time [with me] outside doing stuff. [3] And to a three year old in that's no choice at all - no matter how much he loves watching Bob the Builder.
[1] - most children will push limits. hell mine thinks it's awesome to start sticking appendages into a room I've told him he can't be in. The intent is clear: "you told me I can't be in the kitchen right now, but I'm not - I'm exactly on the threshold and my *hand* is in the kitchen".
[2] -. The answer to this (again in my experience and in my observations) is not to make every limit an absolute thing, except in areas of safety where failure can mean serious injury [2.1]. Set the limit. Know *in advance* how far you will let them push it, and the reasoning behind it (because they will ask and you should have an answer -- after they listen, or else it turns into a negotiation.)
[2.1] No he may never run away from me in the parking lot. Ever. Immediate response to any attempt to do so. On the other hand: I will warn you against the consequences of standing on that stool on the carpeted floor -- but I will not stop you from doing it. Nor will anybody comfort you when you fall down and get hurt. I'll warn you of that, too.
[2] - I say unequivocably enforce limits. This doesn't mean demand instant obedience, but rather know the limit you want to set, know how far you will allow the child to push that limit - and be consistent.
[3] Giving choices - even rigged, loaded choices - is a really important part of parenting, I think. (Perhaps especially the rigged, loaded questions) It took me a while to learn that. Longer still to learn that even very young kids can understand reasoning and choices fairly well. Much better to say, "You can stay here and watch TV while I work in the yard, or you can come outside with me and help." As opposed to either a) not giving the choice because it would much easier for my life to get the yardwork done alone, or b) simply dictating "thou must exit the house fortwith and accompany me now - so sayeth the Lord Dad Thy Father"
Even though I agree with what you're saying, moderation is something that is hard to achieve if you're already out of control. Moderation is hard to achieve unless you have a concrete goal. Moderation is hard to achieve if you're a young child.
I am not following this logic. Of course moderation is hard to achieve if you're a young child - that's why children have parents.
(I use "you'" in the hypothetical sense below.)
If you are the parent, be the parent. You can tell your child no. You will survive if your child gets angry at you and acts out. You'll even survive the oh-so-dreadful embarassment if he does so in public place. You can manage through the inconvenience caused by actually having to attend your child instead of handing over a gadget to entertain him. You do not have to give him what he wants - because you are the parent.
Yes, by all means, explain WHY - always explain why.. Even at 2 or 3 yrs, children understand a lot more than most people think they do. But don't lose sight of the fact that it's not a negotiation. Explain why *after* your expectation is met. Discuss it *after* the behavior has stopped.
You are not your child's friend, you are his parent. Friendship can come later, if he survives through is twenties long enough to grow into a reasonable facsimile of a human being.
f you don't want your kids using your tablets or phones, don't let them. I have no trouble letting my kids use the tablets and the phones. At the same time I don't let them play on them all day long. If they finish their homework and chores, they get some play time. And if they want to play a game on the tablet during their play time, well what is so wrong with that?
Exactly this. Set limits. Stick to them. Remember who is the parent and who is the chid. If you don't want your child using more than X amount of tech, then there is *no* excuse in the world for them to be getting away with doing so.
My kid (3) likes to get time on a tablet, and time watching TV. But given a choice between tablet, tv, or 'working' in the yard with me (eg, poking at the dirt with his tools and periodically helping me when he's interested), he'll pick the yard every time.
On average he's allowed a combined 45 mintues of screen time in a day, though sometimes he'll get more and sometimes less. On days when there is no screen time it's generally because he or we are wrapped up doing other things. He doesn't sneak around trying to get to this stuff if we're not watching closely- he knows he's not allowed. He also knows that these things are privileges that can and sometimes do get taken away for bad behavior. When that happens he gets mad and cries and screams - but then gets over it goes playing happily with such high tech toys such as Legos .
I see parents on a regular basis who just hand their phones over to their toddlers withotu a second thought, and this just baffles me. I see some of those parents try to refuse, the kid starts whining/crying, and the parent hands over the device anyway. This baffles me too. As a parent, your job is not to cater to your child's every whim. It is not to shut your child up with a gadget because actually tending your child isinconvenient to your life. Your job is to be a parent.
Seriously? Disliking people and groups of people who significantly differ is something humans have done throughout recorded history. Surely if it were just as simple as accepting enlightenment, this would have stopped millenia ago.
It happens. It's part of human nature.
Classism.
Racism.
Sexism.
You-don''t-look-like-me-ism.
You-don't-speak-like-I-do-ism.
It's all the same. And - since throughout recorded histroy we've not risen above it - I think it's safe to say that it's part of our make up.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
Sure, people can laugh about this stuff.
Women can laugh about jokes about women.
LGBT can laugh about jokes targeting them.
Blacks can laugh about jokes targeting them.
Lots of laughter,
Just don't laugh at something targeting a group you're not a part of. You don't have that right - because the second you do, you're oppressing them and disdaining all that they've fought for.
The reasons given by pj for closing down are totally unconvincing. Does she communicate day by day? Does she use the phone? Does she write letters? With the same logic she is offering for Groklaw's closure she would have to stop talking, phoning and writing. And breathing.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you. It just doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't compute.
Copyright isn't supposed to be ownership, but a limited time monopoly. I'm fine with my copyrights expiring in 28 years, long copyrights stifle artistic innovation. Imagine how tech would have suffered if patents lasted as long as copyright?
Well spoken.
They should just read The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian EngstrÃm (Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party) & Rick Falkvinge (founder of the original Pirate Party), and implement it. You can, of course, download the book for free on that website. I highly recommend reading it.
Thanks for the recommendation. You deserve to be modded up for that.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn