Mother criticises commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she breastfed her baby

by HoratioTarr Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

A mother has shamed commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she fed her 15-month-old baby in a corridor.
Bryony Esther, 32, shared a photograph of her attempting to breastfeed her child while surrounded by men taking up all nearby seats.
The mother-of-three revealed no one offered to give up their spot for her and one man just chose to gawp at her instead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4706238/Mother-forced-stand-packed-train-breastfeed-baby.html?param_usr=1¶m_targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-4706238%2FMother-forced-stand-packed-train-breastfeed-baby.html¶m_geolocation=gb¶m__host=secured.dailymail.co.uk¶m_hideMasthead=¶m_hideFooter=&base_fe_url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailymail.co.uk%2F&validation_fe_uri=%2Fregistration%2Fp%2Fapi%2Ffield%2Fvalidation%2F&check_user_fe_uri=registration%2Fp%2Fapi%2Fuser%2Fuser_check%2F&isMobile=false

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:47 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Syl I am not telling them, but advising them.
There is a big difference as I am not stopping anyone from using them.
As stated I think they are a poor teaching tool as explained.

But if you are branding every parent who ever used reins as being a poor parent or using poor teaching methods that's very harsh.
Maybe they found that method the best one for their child at that particular time.....like I said every child is different, and not every small child learns to obey orders as quickly as others.
Unless you keep them indoors until they have learned to stay by your side they will be a danger to themselves....so...reins have a place for some parents.

Yes i am stating very much its a very poor teaching method and makes for lazy parents.
That is bad parenting. Its not harsh but very true..
How can they claim to be the best method, when its always going to be boundaries and consequences they will learn over that of the tool with the leash. All the leash does is control them when its used on them. It does not teach anything, but restrains them. Well many parents do not use them and are easily able to go outside with their children.

by Victorismyhero Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:53 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:and...just why as a motorist, does it become MY responsibility to spot said inebriated idiot in dark clothes on an unlit rural road as he wanders into the path of my vehicle....hes drunk...thats HIS fault....hes wearing dark clothes.....thats his fault....and hes wandering drunkenly all over a dark unlit road....

Thorin wrote:It is his fault his is drunk, but does that excuse you from helping someone?

I mean...I accept that is my duty as a driver to look out the front and not bang into things....but hey....give us a chance FFS
Thorin wrote:What if because its dark, that you do not see that in fact its your nephew (hypothetically) who then falls into a river a drowns? You could have prevented that? What if they start to choke on their own sick? You could help them and prevent them from dying.
Just because people get themselves into idiotic situations. Does not mean we should just walk away.

oh and I include in the above those thick ignorant insolent vile feral youths who take it upon themselves to amble accross the road at the slowest pace to deliberately force you to slow down and or stop for them....
Thorin wrote:Maybe you are driving to fast then and they are doing a good think, being as its country roads where many accidents happen

the above only seems to happen in towns....perhaps that explains it....probably poisoned by the air...

THEY should be on the "general licence" and fair game

what part of "wait for a safe moment to cross and then do so promptly etc etc" do they NOT understand?

and the point I think is "how about taking some responsibility for your OWN, and not expect every other member of society to look out for what is in essence YOUR responsibility"
Thorin wrote:Fine so you think all babies should take responsibility for themselves and never have an education or medical help just as you did. Even though you never took any responsibility or this and neither did your parents. The nation did.

OH and "the golden rule" merely states ...do no harm

It does not perforce require extraordinary effort to avoid the harm caused to others by their own lack of forethought.

the "sin of ommision" was never conscripted into the golden rule

the same as the hippocratic oath...it reinforces the positive requirement of not DOING harm, but that oath does not force a doctor to PREVENT harm.....otherwise every doctor present at an execution would perforce be obliged to take all and every step to prevent it , including those steps deemed illegal...

The point I am easily pointing out is that at some point we are all helpless.
You would never argue against help given in the situations I state, but wish to discriminate against people through wrongs you see them as to doing. You base this not on them as a person but by the act you see them do. As in being drunk.

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:54 pm

Lord Foul wrote:

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

by Victorismyhero Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:57 pm

oh bugger...post within post

ok

by Syl Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

But if you are branding every parent who ever used reins as being a poor parent or using poor teaching methods that's very harsh.
Maybe they found that method the best one for their child at that particular time.....like I said every child is different, and not every small child learns to obey orders as quickly as others.
Unless you keep them indoors until they have learned to stay by your side they will be a danger to themselves....so...reins have a place for some parents.

Yes i am stating very much its a very poor teaching method and makes for lazy parents.
That is bad parenting. Its not harsh but very true..
How can they claim to be the best method, when its always going to be boundaries and consequences they will learn over that of the tool with the leash. All the leash does is control them when its used on them. It does not teach anything, but restrains them. Well many parents do not use them and are easily able to go outside with their children.

You are being too judgmental. Every decent parents knows what's best for their own child, I don't agree with the Stepford method of expecting every child to develop in the same way at the same time...they don't, so if a parent chooses to use reins (not a leash, they are for dogs not children) I would support their decision to know better than you or I whats best for their own child..

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:58 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I now pay tax so that children can be educated and people can receive child benefits. It's how it works Didge. The kid wouldn't have cared about anyone giving up their seat. It wasn't about the kid anyway, the mother just wanted to put yet another photo of herself on Facebook and whinge about some people who were minding their own business.

Your amount of tax is minuscule to what the country pays for all children and health care. It would not even cover what you cost the system as a child growing up. So what is the nation did not care as you are doing now. You would not be educated, nor working, no doubt in very ill health and unlikely to lead a long life. All based on a selfish stance you promote Rags

It doesn't matter how much tax I pay. The kid might not pay any tax when she grows up. I'm not responsible for other people's children, and I'm not obliged to pander to them just because they can't organise themselves. If it was not safe to breast feed the kid, she shouldn't have done it. I doubt the kid would have starved before they got to London.

by Victorismyhero Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:58 pm

the red bit was the reply...

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:01 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes i am stating very much its a very poor teaching method and makes for lazy parents.
That is bad parenting. Its not harsh but very true..
How can they claim to be the best method, when its always going to be boundaries and consequences they will learn over that of the tool with the leash. All the leash does is control them when its used on them. It does not teach anything, but restrains them. Well many parents do not use them and are easily able to go outside with their children.
You are being too judgmental. Every decent parents knows what's best for their own child, I don't agree with the Stepford method of expecting every child to develop in the same way at the same time...they don't, so if a parent chooses to use reins (not a leash, they are for dogs not children) I would support their decision to know better than you or I whats best for their own child..

Do they know what is best for their child?
The ones they deny them vaccines?
Do they know what is best when they cause an outbreak?
Again its up to the parents but to say they know best?
That is open to question.
All parents can do is try their best and they should be open to advise. There is no manual and people have top learn as they go along, but it does not hurt to take advice, does it?

Not expecting every child to develop in the same way. The point being made to you, is that the child is not going to learn by the leash. They will by boundaries and consequences. The leash is simple a controlling tool.

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:05 pm

Lord Foul wrote:

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

by Victorismyhero Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:17 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
try getting THAT past a judge....and your insurance company...

Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

you are wrong ...moraly the fault is SOLEY that of the drunk. HE is responsible for the pile up....

call the police???? and then what...

we are sorry sir we dont have the resources....we will send someone out as soon as possible ???

christ you cant get em out when someones busting into your garden shed....they will come tomorrow and give you a crime number, oh and by the way...don't you dare touch him..... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:20 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
try getting THAT past a judge....and your insurance company...

Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

you are wrong ...moraly the fault is SOLEY that of the drunk. HE is responsible for the pile up....

call the police???? and then what...

we are sorry sir we dont have the resources....we will send someone out as soon as possible ???

christ you cant get em out when someones busting into your garden shed....they will come tomorrow and give you a crime number, oh and by the way...don't you dare touch him.....

I never claimed otherwise morally with the drunk.

I am pointing out the possible consequences of doing nothing when upon seeing someone very drunk.

As I said, and even more so the ambulance has a duty of care to attend, due to the fact of possible harm may come to the drunk and as seen others.

by Syl Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
You are being too judgmental. Every decent parents knows what's best for their own child, I don't agree with the Stepford method of expecting every child to develop in the same way at the same time...they don't, so if a parent chooses to use reins (not a leash, they are for dogs not children) I would support their decision to know better than you or I whats best for their own child..

Do they know what is best for their child?
The ones they deny them vaccines?
Do they know what is best when they cause an outbreak?
Again its up to the parents but to say they know best?
That is open to question.
All parents can do is try their best and they should be open to advise. There is no manual and people have top learn as they go along, but it does not hurt to take advice, does it?

Not expecting every child to develop in the same way. The point being made to you, is that the child is not going to learn by the leash. They will by boundaries and consequences. The leash is simple a controlling tool.

Who knows the child best and how it responds and reacts... the parent or some random on a chat forum ?
Re vaccines....obviously medical experts offer advice, and decent parents weigh this up and make the choice to have or not....again its the parents decision that is final.

A child will learn by being restrained, the mums I know who have used reins only need them for a short time, usually when they have a new baby or another toddler as well as the one in reins.... and what's wrong with a controlling tool till a child learns right from wrong?

by Victorismyhero Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:31 pm

anyhows ...I'm off to commit mass murder of orcs on WoW...

my druid character is a one being weapon of mass destruction... Laughing

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:31 pm

Nobody's going to teach a young kid much anyway, so the reins are there to merely stop them running off.

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Do they know what is best for their child?
The ones they deny them vaccines?
Do they know what is best when they cause an outbreak?
Again its up to the parents but to say they know best?
That is open to question.
All parents can do is try their best and they should be open to advise. There is no manual and people have top learn as they go along, but it does not hurt to take advice, does it?

Not expecting every child to develop in the same way. The point being made to you, is that the child is not going to learn by the leash. They will by boundaries and consequences. The leash is simple a controlling tool.

Who knows the child best and how it responds and reacts... the parent or some random on a chat forum ?
Re vaccines....obviously medical experts offer advice, and decent parents weigh this up and make the choice to have or not....again its the parents decision that is final.

A child will learn by being restrained, the mums I know who have used reins only need them for a short time, usually when they have a new baby or another toddler as well as the one in reins.... and what's wrong with a controlling tool till a child learns right from wrong?

Its completely subjective to say that a parent knows best.
For example mine had me practice the violin, viola and piano (got grade 8 in all 3). I played in Orchestras, but knew I had limited potential and would never make a career out of this. Gave it up at 18.

Does that mean they knew best here?
Of course not, most parents want the best for their children, but that does not always mean they know best.
So again it may well be the parents decision, but it does not mean they will always make the best or right ones. Like I say its trying their best that does matter and wanting the best for them, but most of that has to come from the child themselves. In how they achieve.

So if I place a child in a cage, what do you think the lesson they are going to learn from this?
Its form of restraint as well.

Again I bet if you asked those mums that used them. It was more about them teaching boundaries and constraints that helped teach their children. Than having them on a leash. All the leash would have done is help the parents cope. It would do little in helping to teach the child. You teach best by being on their child's level or bringing them to yours up close and personal. So it helps them see through your eyes to learn.

The only decent claim to their worth is on safety, and more as a peace of mind to parents. Its not a teaching tool, but a restraining tool.

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:35 pm

Lord Foul wrote:anyhows ...I'm off to commit mass murder of orcs on WoW...

my druid character is a one being weapon of mass destruction...

Why not play "Total War Warhammer"?

I think you would get very addictive controlling big armies.

Or if you love Skyrim Victor, as I do they have just added a mass new add on Laughing

https://beyondskyrim.org/

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/84946/?

Sorry to divert

Catch you later, or tomorrow, as really have things to do.

by HoratioTarr Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:23 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:

I agree.

Ahh...the topic has moved on.
Re reigns, I never used them but I have known mums who have.
I see no harm in them if the child is hyper or hard to control when out.
I would rather see a small child controlled this way then run into danger or get lost if the parent ever feels they are not in complete control.....its a good short term remedy to teach a wayward kid imo.

Reins, FFS! Mother criticises commuters who forced her to stand on a packed train while she breastfed her baby - Page 5 859118666

by HoratioTarr Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:29 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

If a child continues to remain difficult past a certain age it wont be anything to do with the reins though will it?
In my opinion reins are a short term answer to a particular problem.
My own son was hyperactive...I had to have eyes in the back of my head to make sure he didn't run off or get hurt when he was small.
I always held a firm grip of his hand, but I had only one son and could manage....had I had other small kids I probably would have used reins, its always better to be safe than sorry when dealing with toddlers.

It will be because the parents never taught them properly boundaries and consequences Syl.
So if its down to boundaries and consequences as to how toddlers and children learn.

Then is the leash an effective teaching method?

No

The leash is a form of control, proving the parents do not have control without it.
Hence they require a tool in order to gain control, when it should be how they teach themselves. In how they will properly gain control.

As I say its a poor teaching method Syl.

It's not supposed to teach them anything. Would you put a child in a car without a restraint?

by HoratioTarr Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:37 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

But if you are branding every parent who ever used reins as being a poor parent or using poor teaching methods that's very harsh.
Maybe they found that method the best one for their child at that particular time.....like I said every child is different, and not every small child learns to obey orders as quickly as others.
Unless you keep them indoors until they have learned to stay by your side they will be a danger to themselves....so...reins have a place for some parents.

Yes i am stating very much its a very poor teaching method and makes for lazy parents.
That is bad parenting. Its not harsh but very true..
How can they claim to be the best method, when its always going to be boundaries and consequences they will learn over that of the tool with the leash. All the leash does is control them when its used on them. It does not teach anything, but restrains them. Well many parents do not use them and are easily able to go outside with their children.

You should go onto Mumsnet and read about real parents discussing reins. You might learn something.

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:51 pm

A leash...?

Some of the little ~~shits~~ darlings would be better dealt with using a 'choke chain'... or one of those electric shock collars...!

lol!

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:49 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

It will be because the parents never taught them properly boundaries and consequences Syl.
So if its down to boundaries and consequences as to how toddlers and children learn.

Then is the leash an effective teaching method?

No

The leash is a form of control, proving the parents do not have control without it.
Hence they require a tool in order to gain control, when it should be how they teach themselves. In how they will properly gain control.

As I say its a poor teaching method Syl.

It's not supposed to teach them anything. Would you put a child in a car without a restraint?

What an absurd comparison.

A seat belt to a leash?

Seriously?

So its now compulsory for all children to wear a leash?

Glad you admit its not a teaching tool.

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:51 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes i am stating very much its a very poor teaching method and makes for lazy parents.
That is bad parenting. Its not harsh but very true..
How can they claim to be the best method, when its always going to be boundaries and consequences they will learn over that of the tool with the leash. All the leash does is control them when its used on them. It does not teach anything, but restrains them. Well many parents do not use them and are easily able to go outside with their children.

You should go onto Mumsnet and read about real parents discussing reins. You might learn something.

Wow, what a reply. You want me to take on board some mums's hearsay off the net and not the real world of parents I know?

How about you actually counter the points I make?

Thanks

by Tommy Monk Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:15 pm

How many daughters do you have this week, didge...?

I cant remember if you said it was 2 or 3...!?

lol!

by Guest Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

How many daughters do you have this week, didge...?

I cant remember if you said it was 2 or 3...!?

You cannot remember?

Medical problems Tommy?

by nicko Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:55 am

A "cattle prod" would work well Laughing

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:55 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
try getting THAT past a judge....and your insurance company...

Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

you are wrong ...moraly the fault is SOLEY that of the drunk. HE is responsible for the pile up....

call the police???? and then what...

we are sorry sir we dont have the resources....we will send someone out as soon as possible ???

christ you cant get em out when someones busting into your garden shed....they will come tomorrow and give you a crime number, oh and by the way...don't you dare touch him.....

Here you are at fault
you NEED to always be in control of the vehicle. if your front runs into it that means 'you drove into it' you are responsible for the Collison.

what if what you were driving into was not a drunk but a old person on meds they'd be just as slow and unable to avoid the collision.
Plus the ultimate fault of your logic is kangaroos, your fault for running into it. what are you going to do, try and blame the roo?

by HoratioTarr Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:49 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

How many daughters do you have this week, didge...?

I cant remember if you said it was 2 or 3...!?

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:56 pm

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

It's not supposed to teach them anything. Would you put a child in a car without a restraint?

What an absurd comparison.

A seat belt to a leash?

Seriously?

So its now compulsory for all children to wear a leash?

Glad you admit its not a teaching tool.

I try to follow your reasoning, and it's most interesting, didge. Did you ever play the 'word-association' game I say a word, and you say the first word that comes into your mind? Much of your reasoning process is like that.

Here, for example, a perfectly reliable answer is provided (child tether), and you criticize it, not on any relevant grounds, but because it has an association to a beast of burden on a leash. You abandon the effectiveness of the idea (a tether), and compare the child to the beast of burden, as if to suggest your adversary is maltreating children. If your reasoning had any significance, you would question the association on relevant grounds. But you select that association for it's 'easy language' negative associations. In this way you abandon your linear argument for shear nonsense.

What is most interesting is that this is the same process that advertisers use. Anticipating lazy or perhaps unintelligent listeners, advertisers use 'easy language' associations to get across their messages.

Say you're selling dog food. A lengthy discussion of nutrients would bore your listeners; how much better if you distract your listener with a naked couple making love in bed, with a contented dog sleeping at the foot...give it a slogan: Love your dog in the very best way! Now...that will sell dog food, but it's not very persuasive to the critical listener.

So many of your associations are, like...WTF?????

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:

I try to follow your reasoning, and it's most interesting, didge. Did you ever play the 'word-association' game I say a word, and you say the first word that comes into your mind? Much of your reasoning process is like that.
Thorin wrote: Nope as its not even interesting and no where near comes to my thought pattern or methodology.

Here, for example, a perfectly reliable answer is provided (child tether), and you criticize it, not on any relevant grounds, but because it has an association to a beast of burden on a leash. You abandon the effectiveness of a tether, and compare the child to the beast of burden, as if to suggest s/he is maltreating children. If your reasoning had any significance, you would question the association on relevant grounds. But you select that association for it's 'easy language' negative associations. In this way you abandon your linear argument for shear nonsense.
Thorin wrote: Well that is a poor lie considering I have given many reasons to why I think it is poor and the most important reason. Is that it is not a good teaching method, when setting boundaries and consequences is far better. You could continue down the road of a leash in fear of the child getting hurt and will fail to achieve ever teaching that child in what to understand is dangerous to them. Basically the view to keep a child on a leash is placing them with the view they are of the same intelligence of dogs. When a child can far better and learn to understand than you could ever hope to achieve with a dog. Notice i say child, a 2 year old toddler would be on a par in IQ. I mean even when you teach a dog with using a leash, you are doing so constraining them, but you are teaching them to be free of this leash to listen to commands, but is limited in what it can learn, but again is boundaries and consequences being taught and dogs are far more unpredictable.. A child will develop further than that with age and will understand the danger of roads and traffic etc.

So the argument as you say is not sheer nonsense and why people use the leash is born out of the parents fear. A fear has taken control, that lack the faith in themselves to control any situation with their child. They thus use a form of control you see also with dogs. Now with the dogs its a fear of what they may do to other dogs and humans, but with children its a fear over whether they will do harm to themselves. That shows and means the parents are controlled by their fears and not any ability to control their child.

What is most interesting is that this is the same process that advertisers use. Anticipating lazy or perhaps unintelligent listeners, advertisers use 'easy language' associations to get across their messages.
Thorin wrote: Actually as seen I use psychology as to what makes parents fall prey to fear. They see a rare few incidents of where parents have lost control. Where then the fear of this happening takes control of the parent. As they have already then been controlled by this fear.Where instead of from the earliest ages setting boundaries and consequences. The very thing they will need to do anyway in order for the child to learn.

Shows its fear driving them to think they are in control by using a leash. It does not give them control over the child, as the leash only provides control when it is used. Now without teaching boundaries and consequences and you just continued to use the leash. What ever would the child learn? That is is never given freedom and is constantly held and restrained by this leash. How many years would you have to go through this process for the child to learn?

As when a parent becomes that fearful, they smother that child to much and deny them being able to truly learn and make mistakes. We first learn how to walk, by also continually falling. This does not mean you allow the child to run free into traffic, but that you walk then through the dangers with roads and cars together. A leash is not needed for that to train a child.

Say you're selling dog food. A lengthy discussion of nutrients would bore your listeners; how much better if you distract your listener with a naked couple making love in bed, with a contented dog sleeping at the foot...give it a slogan: Love your dog in the very best way!. Now...that will sell dog food, but it's not very persuasive to the critical listener.

So many of your associations are...WTF?????

How much better if you actually understood psychology and understand that it is fear that drives parents to use the leash. That it is in effect treating children as if they are no better in understanding than animals. Now I can see why some fall prey to this, because some parents mollycoddle their children. Using the leash to me is mollycoddling a child. A child is best going to understand how to learn by teaching boundaries and consequences. Using a leash on its own, they never will learn that, as they are constantly just held back from any potential harm.

The fact though you again poorly try to digress and make this about me says, everything that was poor about your reply. It ceased to even tackle my points and tried poorly to deligitimize me.

I give you a 1 out of ten for that.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:41 pm

Thorin wrote:How much better if you actually understood psychology and understand that it is fear that drives parents to use the leash. That it is in effect treating children as if they are no better in understanding than animals. Now I can see why some fall prey to see, because some parents mollycoddle their children. Using the leash to me is mollycoddling a child. A child is best going to understand how to learn by teaching boundaries and consequences. On a leash it never will learn that, as its constantly just held back from any potential harm.

It's actually much simpler than you make it, what with your lengthy exegesis on psychology. You are in a discussion, and you are twisting the discussion you are having with us. We don't need your magical psychology arts. The point is, you are 'mission drifting' your subject.

Now, are you saying that there is some sort of psychological impact on the children by tethering them? Prove it. The child is used to all sorts of restraints; s/he has no associations with a beast of burden. That's in your mind. Here's your argument:

Thorin wrote:Using the leash to me is mollycoddling a child. A child is best going to understand how to learn by teaching boundaries and consequences. On a leash it never will learn that, as its constantly just held back from any potential harm.

How does using a tether not create "boundaries and consequences?" You are not suggesting that an injury to the child will be a better teaching tool, are you? But you see how you've changed the subject from safety to teaching? Besides bad teaching methods, you have abandoned all pretense at keeping the child safe.

Thorin wrote:The fact though you again poorly try to digress and make this about me says, everything that was poor about your reply. It ceased to even tackle my points and tried poorly to deligitimize me.

Awww...poor didge, he was trying to help us understand, and he ends up getting "delegitimized". Fact is, delegitimization is a part of any argument. To disagree is, in a sense, to delegitimize an argument. Get tough, and stop crying.

I don't really digress; I've merely made a point within the topic of discussion, and concurrently criticized your style of argument on a more general level, in the same effort. That's because your style affects the content.

Moreover, I have connected your style to an on-going discussion I have had with you about why you lose the plot so often...and turn to abusiveness. This is both instructive to you, while for others, a continuing conversation about the topic. I often find opportunities to multi-task arguments with you, as you are so repetitive in your habits.

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:

It's actually much simpler than you make it, what with your lengthy exegesis on psychology. You are in a discussion, and you are twisting the discussion you are having with us. We don't need your magical psychology arts. The point is, you are 'mission drifting' your subject.
Thorin wrote:So more points about me and nothing on what I have just presented you with.

1 out of 10

Now, are you saying that there is some sort of psychological impact on the children by tethering them? Prove it. The child is used to all sorts of restraints; s/he has no associations with a beast of burden. That's in your mind. Here's your argument:

Thorin wrote:Never claimed there was a psychological impact.
Show anywhere that I did?
I stated my points on teaching and how children will not be able to learn as good when they are mollocoddled,
So you further invent things I never even said

1 out of 10

How does using a tether not create "boundaries and consequences?" You are not suggesting that an injury to the child will be a better teaching tool, are you? But you see how you've changed the subject from safety to teaching? Besides bad teaching methods, you have abandoned all pretense at keeping the child safe.

Thorin wrote:Well done, it does not create boundaries and consequences. It cannot, as the child is held back by a leash. All it does it control the child. Never claimed an injury is a better method of teaching, but pain is a factor that doing something hurts. So if something hurts would you want that to happen again?. My whole point throughout has been about teaching, hence the point on boundaries and consequences. Which requires teaching does it not?

1 out of 10

Awww...poor didge, he was trying to help us understand, and he ends up getting "delegitimized". Fact is, delegitimization is a part of any argument. To disagree is. in a sense, to delegitimize an argument. Get tough, and stop crying.
Thorin wrote:So more points about me and nothing on what I have just presented you with.

1 out of 10

I don't really digress; I've merely made a point within the topic of discussion, and concurrently criticized your style of argument on a more general level, in the same effort.
Thorin wrote:So more points about me and nothing on what I have just presented you with.

1 out of 10

Moreover, I have connected your style to an on-going discussion I have had with you about why you lose the plot so often...and turn to abusiveness. This is both instructive to you, while for others, a continuing conversation about the topic. I often find opportunities to multi-task arguments with you, as you are so repetitive in your habits.

So more points about me and nothing on what I have just presented you with.

1 out of 10

Try again

Well that is a poor lie considering I have given many reasons to why I think it is poor and the most important reason. Is that it is not a good teaching method, when setting boundaries and consequences is far better. You could continue down the road of a leash in fear of the child getting hurt and will fail to achieve ever teaching that child in what to understand is dangerous to them. Basically the view to keep a child on a leash is placing them with the view they are of the same intelligence of dogs. When a child can far better and learn to understand than you could ever hope to achieve with a dog. Notice i say child, a 2 year old toddler would be on a par in IQ. I mean even when you teach a dog with using a leash, you are doing so constraining them, but you are teaching them to be free of this leash to listen to commands, but is limited in what it can learn, but again is boundaries and consequences being taught and dogs are far more unpredictable.. A child will develop further than that with age and will understand the danger of roads and traffic etc.

So the argument as you say is not sheer nonsense and why people use the leash is born out of the parents fear. A fear has taken control, that lack the faith in themselves to control any situation with their child. They thus use a form of control you see also with dogs. Now with the dogs its a fear of what they may do to other dogs and humans, but with children its a fear over whether they will do harm to themselves. That shows and means the parents are controlled by their fears and not any ability to control their child.

Actually as seen I use psychology as to what makes parents fall prey to fear. They see a rare few incidents of where parents have lost control. Where then the fear of this happening takes control of the parent. As they have already then been controlled by this fear.Where instead of from the earliest ages setting boundaries and consequences. The very thing they will need to do anyway in order for the child to learn.

Shows its fear driving them to think they are in control by using a leash. It does not give them control over the child, as the leash only provides control when it is used. Now without teaching boundaries and consequences and you just continued to use the leash. What ever would the child learn? That is is never given freedom and is constantly held and restrained by this leash. How many years would you have to go through this process for the child to learn?

As when a parent becomes that fearful, they smother that child to much and deny them being able to truly learn and make mistakes. We first learn how to walk, by also continually falling. This does not mean you allow the child to run free into traffic, but that you walk then through the dangers with roads and cars together. A leash is not needed for that to train a child.

How much better if you actually understood psychology and understand that it is fear that drives parents to use the leash. That it is in effect treating children as if they are no better in understanding than animals. Now I can see why some fall prey to this, because some parents mollycoddle their children. Using the leash to me is mollycoddling a child. A child is best going to understand how to learn by teaching boundaries and consequences. Using a leash on its own, they never will learn that, as they are constantly just held back from any potential harm.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:04 pm

Thorin wrote:You could continue down the road of a leash in fear of the child getting hurt and will fail to achieve ever teaching that child in what to understand is dangerous to them.

The parent's job is multiple. This is teaching. That is making sure the child is safe. A tether is making the child safe, and has nothing to do with teaching. Don't confuse the two ideas, and you will follow the plot.

Thorin wrote:Basically the view to keep a child on a leash is placing them with the view they are of the same intelligence of dogs.

There are no negative pedagogical consequence when the child has no image to model. "Placing them with the view..."? A toddler doesn't have any of the associations that you have because s/he hasn't been taught your associations. S/he is a tabula rasa.

Intelligence? The concept of intelligence is hardly going to figure into the mind of a toddler. In order for the child to even begin to associate with the dog (which isn't a bad thing), s/he must begin to form metaphors...and a toddler has ages to go before s/he can begin to associate anything with the idea of intelligence. Hence: no negative associative consequences. It's just a restraint, exclusively for child safety.

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:

The parent's job is multiple. This is teaching. That is making sure the child is safe. A tether is making the child safe, and has nothing to do with teaching. Don't confuse the two ideas, and you will follow the plot.

Thorin wrote:But a child does not need a tether in order to be taught how to be safe when out and about..
So its not a good teaching method. Its simple a control, when parents are as stated driven more by fear

There are no negative pedagogical consequence when the child has no image to model. A toddler doesn't have any of the associations that you have because s/he hasn't been taught your associations.

Thorin wrote:Well how does a child model themselves to that of their own parents, when they are on a leash and the parents are not?

Intelligence? The concept of intelligence is hardly going to figure into the mind of a toddler. In order for the child to even begin to associate with the dog (which isn't a bad thing), s/he must begin to form metaphors...and a toddler has ages to go before s/he can begin to associate anything with the idea of intelligence. Hence: no negative associative consequences. It's just a restraint.

Who said intelligence would figure into the mind of the toddler. Learning certainly will do. The point is where intelligence is roughly equal with a dog is around 2 years old. The dog will not really increase much further after this, but the child will substantially as it ages.

Anyway you still have avoided most of my points, but well done for actually sticking on topic

by Syl Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:12 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

Ahh...the topic has moved on.
Re reigns, I never used them but I have known mums who have.
I see no harm in them if the child is hyper or hard to control when out.
I would rather see a small child controlled this way then run into danger or get lost if the parent ever feels they are not in complete control.....its a good short term remedy to teach a wayward kid imo.

Reins, FFS!

Calm down dear...you will hurt yourself. tongue

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:21 pm

Thorin wrote:Who said intelligence would figure into the mind of the toddler. Learning certainly will do. The point is where intelligence is roughly equal with a dog is around 2 years old. The dog will not increase any further after this, but the child will substantially.

Learning takes place when you have a model. A developing child instinctively makes metaphors, by which s/he associates.

We are not talking about the intelligence of dogs, per se, but the process of learning. There is no model of dogs being stupid, so ipso facto you can't be teaching the child s/he's as stupid as a dog. The child has no association of intelligence!

The child probably hasn't even formed the association of the tether with (or meaning) restraint. It just is. One is not teaching a child anything because didge has these associations in his mind. The child has no such model.

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Who said intelligence would figure into the mind of the toddler. Learning certainly will do. The point is where intelligence is roughly equal with a dog is around 2 years old. The dog will not increase any further after this, but the child will substantially.

Learning takes place when you have a model. A developing child instinctively makes metaphors, by which s/he associates.

We are not talking about the intelligence of dogs, per se, but the process of learning. There is no model of dogs being stupid, so ipso facto you can't be teaching the child s/he's as stupid as a dog. The child has no association of intelligence!

The child probably hasn't even formed the association of the tether with (or meaning) restraint. It just is. One is not teaching a child anything because didge has these associations in his mind. The child has no such model.

But providing how dogs are on leashes and children are too, shows how parents perceive the intelligence of both and its both based around fear and control. So this is the point you are failing to grasp. A dog will be taught through trial and error to listen to voice commands by understanding words. This can be a slow process and is limited in what can be taught.

Now a child can start to learn and understand the words and their meanings as they age. Now the child will certainly understand the leash, as well as a belt in a pushchair constrains them, and they often get upset over this. In fact some will get upset at just at this being put on. So it fundamentally shows they do understand what the leash is and does. So its learning that it is being restrained and not learning dangers through this. As they are fixed controls.

So again its back to boundaries and consequences as to how the child will learn and develop.

Still waiting for you to address most of my points.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:05 pm

Thorin wrote:Still waiting for you to address most of my points.

Re-read until you get it. I've posted everything I want to say to this point. If you have anything new, go ahead and post it.

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Still waiting for you to address most of my points.

Re-read until you get it. I've posted everything I want to say to this point. If you have anything new, go ahead and post it.

So you are basically bowing out to my points

No problem, thanks for the chat.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Re-read until you get it. I've posted everything I want to say to this point. If you have anything new, go ahead and post it.

So you are basically bowing out to my points

No problem, thanks for the chat.

Of course I am. I've won.

No sense in trying to outbid myself. Razz

by Guest Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you are basically bowing out to my points

No problem, thanks for the chat.

Of course I am. I've won.

No sense in trying to outbid myself.

It never was about winning.

Its about boundaries and consequences, of which you clearly do not understand

Shame really. A tad like where parenting falls down and can be soft. They often fail to set up rules for their kids. As they do not want to come across as mean. So because they are soft, they fail to enforce boundaries and follow up poor behaviour with consequences.

Hence the leash becomes a form of control, because the parents lack the ability to control themselves.

So you never won anything, because you failed to learn.

by Victorismyhero Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:31 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

precisely

getting drunk is their choice
wearing dark clothes is their choice
wandering drunkenly all over an unlit road is their choice

their choices should not put me in the situation of being responsible for the results of their accident ...
they are 100% to blame provided I wasnt driving "without reasonable care" the operative word being "reasonable" having regard to road conditions etc .
In other word the question that SHOULD be asked...but never is ...is would my driving at that point have endangered a normal, sensible sober person under those conditions....If the answer is no it wouldnt.....then it should not be my responsibilty for flattening a drunken asshole who cant walk in a straight line.

I never said you would be to blame. They would be to blame, but could you have prevented an accident.
try getting THAT past a judge....and your insurance company...

Now imagine you see a drunk in the road and drive past without stopping. You could of course have called the Police or an ambulance to attend. Of which they would have to out of a duty of care.

Now the next day after you drove past you hear there has been an accident. A car has swerved to avoid the drunk and gone into another car, with multiple deaths and injuries.

Now you have others dead because nobody did anything, when they could have done something.

I think we could do this all day, back and forth.

you are wrong ...moraly the fault is SOLEY that of the drunk. HE is responsible for the pile up....

call the police???? and then what...

we are sorry sir we dont have the resources....we will send someone out as soon as possible ???

christ you cant get em out when someones busting into your garden shed....they will come tomorrow and give you a crime number, oh and by the way...don't you dare touch him.....

Here you are at fault
you NEED to always be in control of the vehicle. if your front runs into it that means 'you drove into it' you are responsible for the Collison.

what if what you were driving into was not a drunk but a old person on meds they'd be just as slow and unable to avoid the collision.
Plus the ultimate fault of your logic is kangaroos, your fault for running into it. what are you going to do, try and blame the roo?

Hah...wrong as usual.....

you are obliged to "take reasonable care"

and are now adjudged on what "the reasonable man would do"

and whether or not your driving was up to the standard required of a reasonably competant driver"

HOWEVER....

That does not prevent money grabbing insurance companies from loading your insurance even if found not guilty....

moreover an elderly person on meds shouldnt be out in the dark alone...

the issues of roos applys to deer here too

(since no-one "owns them" )

but NOT to farm or domestic animals....

farmers cow in the lane causes an accident...farmer is liable....(look to your fences mate)

by Guest Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:54 pm

Based on what I have been saying on Mollycoddling by some parents. I thought I would post this video by Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist. To see what people think on his views in regards to the over protective mother. Really interested to hear what the mothers on here think on his views, as a genuine point of discussion on whether they agree or not.

by Victorismyhero Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:34 pm

anyway...I dont see the problem with training a todler like a dog....up to about 2-2 1/2 there aint a lot of difference..

both need feeding regularly..else they make a noise
both will puke all over you ....and enjoy doing so
both will eat anything in range...enjoy it...the proceed to item no2
and both will shit on your carpet totally unabashed....

oh and despite learming mama and dada first (which aint much different to the pups yap of delight on seeing you the first word BOTH really get to grips with and learn to associate meaning with is .......NO !

by Syl Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:37 pm

I think you must have gone to the Barbara Woodhouse school of child rearing. Razz

by Guest Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:38 pm

Lord Foul wrote:anyway...I dont see the problem with training a todler like a dog....up to about 2-2 1/2 there aint a lot of difference..

both need feeding regularly..else they make a noise
both will puke all over you ....and enjoy doing so
both will eat anything in range...enjoy it...the proceed to item no2
and both will shit on your carpet totally unabashed....

oh and despite learming mama and dada first (which aint much different to the pups yap of delight on seeing you the first word BOTH really get to grips with and learn to associate meaning with is .......NO !

I get your point Victor, but what about when they are older than 2?

Many parents continue to use this standard up to four.

How is that child learning for themselves so constrained?

Surely you would agree with me you learn to help that child to be as independent as quickly as possible?

For example, when you teach your grand children fishing, do you not set boundaries and consequences mate?

by Victorismyhero Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:48 pm

Syl wrote:I think you must have gone to the Barbara Woodhouse school of child rearing.

How DID you guess??

by Victorismyhero Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:anyway...I dont see the problem with training a todler like a dog....up to about 2-2 1/2 there aint a lot of difference..

both need feeding regularly..else they make a noise
both will puke all over you ....and enjoy doing so
both will eat anything in range...enjoy it...the proceed to item no2
and both will shit on your carpet totally unabashed....

oh and despite learming mama and dada first (which aint much different to the pups yap of delight on seeing you the first word BOTH really get to grips with and learn to associate meaning with is .......NO !

I get your point Victor, but what about when they are older than 2?

Many parents continue to use this standard up to four.

How is that child learning for themselves so constrained?

Surely you would agree with me you learn to help that child to be as independent as quickly as possible?

For example, when you teach your grand children fishing, do you not set boundaries and consequences mate?

yeah...BUT...I also make em wear life jackets near deep waters despite the fact both can swim, and despite the fact i am a powerful swimmer.

learning to be careful by drowning is kinda self defeating...besides their mother would be most displeased....

by Guest Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:57 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I get your point Victor, but what about when they are older than 2?

Many parents continue to use this standard up to four.

How is that child learning for themselves so constrained?

Surely you would agree with me you learn to help that child to be as independent as quickly as possible?

For example, when you teach your grand children fishing, do you not set boundaries and consequences mate?

yeah...BUT...I also make em wear life jackets near deep waters despite the fact both can swim, and despite the fact i am a powerful swimmer.

learning to be careful by drowning is kinda self defeating...besides their mother would be most displeased....

But also adults generally wear life jackets on boats also. As you can be the best swimmer in the world and still drown. So that is a poor example mate. An under current in rivers and rip tide in the sea, can pull the best swimmer down.

The reality is, they have been taught to be good swimmers is it not? In order that they can protect themselves from drowning? You have taught them to be independent in the water

by Victorismyhero Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:05 pm

yes BUT...they STILL wear life jackets even next to still water ponds.....unless they are harmlessly shallow...

you can teach the kid not to run into the road...but untill you are SURE they wont, they wear the reins

by Guest Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:18 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yes BUT...they STILL wear life jackets even next to still water ponds.....unless they are harmlessly shallow...

you can teach the kid not to run into the road...but untill you are SURE they wont, they wear the reins

Victor, we both know you can teach kids not to run into roads, and they still do way past toddler age and sadly are run over. In fact way older. So how long then are you going to enforce this over protectiveness? And stifle their independence?
Seriously, by using the reins, what are you hoping to teach them?
That they cannot learn, and that you have to rein them in constantly?
How rare are these incidents to warrant such over protection by parents?
Surely the earlier a child understands that danger, the better it will understand not to run out in harms way.??

by Sponsored content