If you don't see a point in having 7 children, don't have 7 children.
So exercise your rights as a consumer to research beforehand and not buy it. Or return it. Or modify it, as you have
That's what he did. He exercised his right to modify it, and he exercised his right to tell people what he did.
My guess is they mean more sending your kid to sit in their room and supposedly think deep thoughts on whatever they did that led to being stuck in their room and how to act better next time.
Yeah, that never accomplished much for me. And I still had to learn to relax in the face of frustration when I was grown. If I had simply learned that before adulthood, I probably would have had 80% of what I needed to get by productively and healthily.
Here's where you'll say "NOTHING! They're all perfect Angles!"
I assume you meant "anglos"? Would it surprise you to learn that I'm raising them bilingually and interculturally?
This is me glaring at you incredulously ---**glares at you incredulously**
I think you could benefit from some form of relaxation therapy. It's not always necessary or helpful to vent against lifestyles that you disagree with.
I have five young kids. There's no way to survive this as a parent if you don't let your kids cry themselves to sleep at times. There simply aren't enough parents and time to go around otherwise. Every child is different, but my five only cried for a long period for about 2 weeks or less. Then it generally reduced to about 30-90 seconds. Over the course of their first year of life, they learn to sleep, in stages. There are regressions associated with certain development stages, but so be it. My family size was average until the last 2-3 generations. Is is abundantly apparent that the reduction in family size provides the luxury of a lot more choices in parenting. That's a positive thing. But because there is so much variety to the human condition, it is illogical to suggest that 'crying it out' is new or terribly sub-optimal.
I have seven children. We almost never had to let a child cry themselves to sleep, but I do suspect that may have to do with our kids' individual wiring and that crying to sleep might be the best solution in other situations. Most of our infant sleep problems were resolved when we realized our kids were much hungrier than experts predicted and started feeding them a lot more! Giving the baby another bottle turned out to be the number one way to get our babies to fall asleep with less fuss. When they get a little older (around 3-4 years) there are occasional times when a temper tantrum goes right into sleep.
Say goodbye to timeouts. So long spanking and other ritualized whacks. And cry-it-out sleep routines? Mercifully, they too can be a thing of the past.
I applaud any attempt to bring neuroscience and other scientific insights to bear on childrearing, but I question the idea that somebody who is an expert in one of these sub-issues would also be an expert in the others. Sounds like we are committing the logical fallacy of assuming that because one person is an expert in one field they are an expert in all. Maybe these are all related, but it just seems to me that neuroscience is complex enough that an answer to one of these questions doesn't have a lot of bearing on the answer to others.
I'm a father of seven, and I do a lot of work with my kids that could be called timeout, although I don't know if it fits anyone else's idea of what timeouts are. I make my children follow the same rule I was given for myself from a clinical psychologist: when you are angry or upset, don't say or do anything until you relax, because everything you are thinking of saying or doing is a bad idea. Over time you build up the habit of relaxing in the face of frustration, and when you do your brain stops putting so much energy into angry outbursts and starts putting it into actually solving your problem. Also you are a lot less likely to whack somebody that you want to be friends with for the rest of your life. I have a hard time believing that neuroscience would yield any results that say this is a bad idea for child rearing, but maybe they mean something different by "timeout."
I'm religious, fundamentalist, and I agree with you.
Oh, man, this guy and I were cut from the same OCD cloth. I know it just looking at his pictures of Atari 2600 game boxes all sorted first by box style and then alphabetized. I used to do that when I was a kid and when I finally get the thing out of storage I'll bet a bunch of the games are alphabetized.
I have seven kids all homeschooled and we love to fire up Mame, and I've kept my Atari 2600 although they haven't gotten to play it yet and I need to bring it out of storage. And I love to have them go through interesting pieces of twentieth century history in chronological order - right now we're watching through old Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons together on Saturday mornings, in order. Next year they are going to watch all six Star Wars films in the order they were released, before we see Episode VII.
BTW, it's kind of adding insult to injury that the Pac-Man screen on that article doesn't match the actual console that is shown. I wonder what the kid thought of various ports of Pac-Man.
Why does your child have to be a scientist? How is this any better than a 20 year old boy whose parents want him to be a doctor and who disown him because he chooses to be a musician?
As a father of seven children, I believe you'll make better parenting decisions if you learn to let go, and spend lots of time deliberating and negotiating with your wife so that the wisdom of both of you can be brought to bear. If you really want your children to be counter culture in some way, and you are both enthusiastic about it, you might look into homeschooling.
There is effectively no censorship on the internet now
I pick forums that have a level of moderation that suits my needs. In the past I tended toward more laissez-faire moderated places and just ignored what I didn't like, but as I've grown older for a handful of subjects I've needed forums that are little tighter. That's the great thing about freedom: you can pick what suits you, and get away from everywhere else.
Though honestly, all *three* movies are terrible when you compare them to the Thrawn trilogy (also not a popular opinion, but search yourself, you know it to be true
That's one of the best reasons ever for eliminating copyright - let the differing visions compete on their merits, rather than on what is "official" according to the copyright holder.
I loved the Thrawn trilogy, but at some point I realized they could never be movies because they were just too long. Which is a shame - I would sit through them with joy, but the general public wouldn't. Back in the day, everybody I knew thought that the Thrawn trilogy was 7, 8, and 9.
but maybe having a good writer (who made almost all the Star Wars films you love -- and none of the ones you hate) means you'll have a good story?
I don't know if today's grown Star Wars fans will ever be happy. Nowadays it's popular to blast even Return of the Jedi. I think the sophisticated fans feel that only IV and V, or even only V, were any good.
My memory is that when TPM came out, everybody on Slashdot posted that they loved it for about a day - and then suddenly the hate came in. I never figured it out. Suddenly it wasn't cool to like TPM, so everybody hated on it.
what if this happens because Branson wants some results to show to investors and pushed too much? Would you still say he was a brave pioneer or just an abused employee?
In that case I'd say he was both. He was made a pioneer by his intentions. He wouldn't be the first pioneer to be abused and mistreated, just as he is not the first pioneer to give his life trying to get humanity to the next frontier.