You have no business on this thread but to cause trouble and you know it.
Please stay out of this thread and keep your irrelevant "survival of the fittest" garbage to other more relevant threads.
Cruel Parenting
- Thread starter frugalmom
- Start date
- Status
Please stay out of this thread and keep your irrelevant "survival of the fittest" garbage to other more relevant threads.
I disagree with you, but I will comply with your request.
I'd like to see you prove this. Not because I think you're wrong, but because I would derive a certain pleasure from it. Sort of like how some especially naughty children enjoy flipping a turtle over on its back just to watch it struggle. Or I could compare it to watching a hamster running endlessly in its wheel, and getting nowhere despite all its efforts.
I would like you to find some way to conclusively prove that I have multiple screennames on this forum, and, on top of that, that those screennames which allegedly also belong to me profess alternative viewpoints to what I have asserted myself to believe. I'm sure you could provide some shaky proof, enough to cause the superstitious and mindless among us (which, for the sake of all involved, I hope are very few) to believe it; but could you prove it in a court of law?
If you can, be my guest. In fact, keep a documented account of your efforts. Fax me updates every half hour!
C
cattyfan
Guest
actually, it would be helpful and beneficial for all of us to know the multiple identities...I would like to know who is wasting my time (besides !!!!First and servent101.) Please reveal.
So would anyone object to me booting this Nietzschean idiot off the forum?
C
cattyfan
Guest
if he's really posting under more than one name, then he should be booted.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I body slammed him earlier today.... then I banned him this afternoon and then finally turbo drop kicked him.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Actually, I derive a certain amount of pleasure :cloud9: by the thought of "body slamming" that "poster" (eeuuuu, sorry for sounding so nice), "drop kicking" and "sending him to the MOON"!!!
It's analogous to putting a turtle upside down, :freak: ,,, no, :doh: that's not it. Oh, yes, it's analogous to putting a liberal in a room full of bible toting, home schooling, right dividing, anti-Choice, Christian conservatives and saying, your on your own. :shocked: Or reminding people who are enemies of God of judgment day :think: and how the righteous will rejoice
:first: :bannana:arty: :BRAVO: :guitar:
when they see the vengeance.
TOL rocks! :thumb:
It's analogous to putting a turtle upside down, :freak: ,,, no, :doh: that's not it. Oh, yes, it's analogous to putting a liberal in a room full of bible toting, home schooling, right dividing, anti-Choice, Christian conservatives and saying, your on your own. :shocked: Or reminding people who are enemies of God
of judgment day :think: and how the righteous will rejoice :first: :bannana:
arty: :BRAVO: :guitar:when they see the vengeance.
TOL rocks! :thumb:
Alrighty then! Now that all that is over I'll repost post# 109 here so as to get us back on track.
Thank you Knight for removing the distraction! :thumb:
Excuse my sarcasm but this doesn't even come close to responding to the issue! No one is suggesting PUNISHING the child, as I have already explained. Training is not punishing! To punish a child before it is able to understand right and wrong, at least to some degree, is a stupid waste of time. Training and punishment are not at all the same issue.
Look, if you don't want to discuss the issue just say so and I'll drop it or talk with someone else about it. But characterizing either the "Growing Kids God's Way" material or especially "To Train Up a Child" as "mainstream" is just simply intellectually dishonest! If anything you are the more mainstream! On demand feeding, especially on demand breast feeding is the mantra of practically every parenting magazine ever published!
You either have what these books are teaching completely upside down and backward, or you're just arguing to be arguing!
I have no argument with you if you want to say that the Pearl's are little harsher than most and even perhaps harsher than they should be in certain situations. But this sort of nonsense is just not in there! The Pearl's were Amish for crying out loud! I hardly think they could have given a rip what was popular in the 60's, 70's and 80's! And when the Ezzo's published their stuff it was met with all sorts of accusations of child abuse and the like, exactly the sort of thing you're saying, again, hardly what I would call mainstream.
Look, feeding on a schedule does not; I repeat, DOES NOT have the child going hungry! All its about is intentionally taking control of the babies biological clock (for want of a better term). If you have your baby on a feeding schedule, the baby still gets fed on demand, it’s just that you are in control of when that demand is going to come.
Babies aren't hungry when their bellies are full whether the stomach is the size of a grape or a grapefruit. The baby gets hungry because its last meal has left the building sort of speak! And guess what! Food takes a very specific amount of time to digest! So if you control the amount and time a baby eats, you also, by default, control when the baby will be hungry again. Imagine that!
Further, a baby’s sleeping patterns are directly influence by its feeding patterns. If you stabilize a baby’s feeding times you will also stabilize their sleep patterns as well. This is the ONLY reason why it is possible to have normal babies sleeping 6-8 hours AT NIGHT by about the 8th week after birth. It has nothing to do with letting the baby cry all night long until it just figures out that it’s not going to be fed and goes to sleep. It has everything to do with the fact that the baby can sleep peacefully all night long because IT IS NOT HUNGRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
This way you will not have to worry about leaving a crying baby to cry, and worry about whether it is hungry or not. You know that it is not hungry and so it becomes about a billion times easier to figure out whether the baby is just being stubborn or if there is actually something wrong. As you know, when there is something wrong, the cry sounds dramatically different.
You say that crying is a baby’s only means of communication. This is certainly not so, but I'll grant it for the sake of this conversation. You now claim that crying is a late sign of hunger (which I agree with) and you claim to feed on demand. Thus you only feed when the baby cries because otherwise how would you know when it is hungry since it can't communicate any other way, which means that your baby has been hungry already for some period of time while you've been clueless or oblivious to it.
If you had been on a schedule you would have known hours in advance when the child was going to be hungry and chances are, the child would never have gotten to the crying hungry stage before it had a nipple in its mouth.
Further, if you breast feed on demand you will almost certainly be feeding on cue, when the babies cries. And just as the babies body can be trained, so can yours. If you feed your baby every time it cries, then get ready to lactate all over yourself the first time you hear a baby crying at the grocery store. It called involuntary conditioned response. You are no more in control of it than Pavlov's dog unless you take control of the conditions you will be slave to the response. It's as simple as that.
First of all this statement is patently untrue.
Second, you knew it was untrue when you said it. That's why you said it in the first place. If this statement where true, there would be no reason to say it. The only reason anyone ever says anything like this is when they aren't really sure they've done a sufficient job of establishing their position and so attempt to head off a rebuttal at the pass. It's sort of like the Calvinist preacher who, when they are making a point that they can't establish Biblical, they leave themselves a note in their sermon outline..."material here is weak, POUND PULPIT HERE!"
Resting in Him,
Clete
Thank you Knight for removing the distraction! :thumb:
Wow! you must raise perfect children!
Excuse my sarcasm but this doesn't even come close to responding to the issue! No one is suggesting PUNISHING the child, as I have already explained. Training is not punishing! To punish a child before it is able to understand right and wrong, at least to some degree, is a stupid waste of time. Training and punishment are not at all the same issue.
This is insanity!
Look, if you don't want to discuss the issue just say so and I'll drop it or talk with someone else about it. But characterizing either the "Growing Kids God's Way" material or especially "To Train Up a Child" as "mainstream" is just simply intellectually dishonest! If anything you are the more mainstream! On demand feeding, especially on demand breast feeding is the mantra of practically every parenting magazine ever published!
You either have what these books are teaching completely upside down and backward, or you're just arguing to be arguing!
Yeah! ME TOO! Do you really think that this is what I advocate or what those books are teaching?!!! If so you are seriously wrong and, as I have been trying to get across to you, are reacting emotionally to teachings that are not there!
I have no argument with you if you want to say that the Pearl's are little harsher than most and even perhaps harsher than they should be in certain situations. But this sort of nonsense is just not in there! The Pearl's were Amish for crying out loud! I hardly think they could have given a rip what was popular in the 60's, 70's and 80's! And when the Ezzo's published their stuff it was met with all sorts of accusations of child abuse and the like, exactly the sort of thing you're saying, again, hardly what I would call mainstream.
Here again, you are either incredibly naive or being intentionally disingenuous. I can't even believe that a parent could say such a ridiculous thing.
Look, feeding on a schedule does not; I repeat, DOES NOT have the child going hungry! All its about is intentionally taking control of the babies biological clock (for want of a better term). If you have your baby on a feeding schedule, the baby still gets fed on demand, it’s just that you are in control of when that demand is going to come.
Babies aren't hungry when their bellies are full whether the stomach is the size of a grape or a grapefruit. The baby gets hungry because its last meal has left the building sort of speak! And guess what! Food takes a very specific amount of time to digest! So if you control the amount and time a baby eats, you also, by default, control when the baby will be hungry again. Imagine that!
Further, a baby’s sleeping patterns are directly influence by its feeding patterns. If you stabilize a baby’s feeding times you will also stabilize their sleep patterns as well. This is the ONLY reason why it is possible to have normal babies sleeping 6-8 hours AT NIGHT by about the 8th week after birth. It has nothing to do with letting the baby cry all night long until it just figures out that it’s not going to be fed and goes to sleep. It has everything to do with the fact that the baby can sleep peacefully all night long because IT IS NOT HUNGRY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
This way you will not have to worry about leaving a crying baby to cry, and worry about whether it is hungry or not. You know that it is not hungry and so it becomes about a billion times easier to figure out whether the baby is just being stubborn or if there is actually something wrong. As you know, when there is something wrong, the cry sounds dramatically different.
This sentence very dramatically argues against your own position!
You say that crying is a baby’s only means of communication. This is certainly not so, but I'll grant it for the sake of this conversation. You now claim that crying is a late sign of hunger (which I agree with) and you claim to feed on demand. Thus you only feed when the baby cries because otherwise how would you know when it is hungry since it can't communicate any other way, which means that your baby has been hungry already for some period of time while you've been clueless or oblivious to it.
If you had been on a schedule you would have known hours in advance when the child was going to be hungry and chances are, the child would never have gotten to the crying hungry stage before it had a nipple in its mouth.
Feeding on a schedule works just fine with breast feeding and this statement of yours backs that up. As you said, breasts produce milk based on demand and as I said a moment ago, you are still feeding on demand it’s just that you have taken control of when that demand will come.
Further, if you breast feed on demand you will almost certainly be feeding on cue, when the babies cries. And just as the babies body can be trained, so can yours. If you feed your baby every time it cries, then get ready to lactate all over yourself the first time you hear a baby crying at the grocery store. It called involuntary conditioned response. You are no more in control of it than Pavlov's dog unless you take control of the conditions you will be slave to the response. It's as simple as that.
Two things here.
First of all this statement is patently untrue.
Second, you knew it was untrue when you said it. That's why you said it in the first place. If this statement where true, there would be no reason to say it. The only reason anyone ever says anything like this is when they aren't really sure they've done a sufficient job of establishing their position and so attempt to head off a rebuttal at the pass. It's sort of like the Calvinist preacher who, when they are making a point that they can't establish Biblical, they leave themselves a note in their sermon outline..."material here is weak, POUND PULPIT HERE!"
Most of the world co-sleeps! Is that supposed to convince me that it's a good idea? I thought you said it was my position that was in the mainstream! And now you’re making the argument that the mainstream has it right! Which is it?
My wife has been a stay at home mom since day one. This discussion has nothing to do with being a "career woman". And no one has suggested that a baby should be independent. I don't even know what that means!Babies who are unnaturally forced to be independent from day one are put under extreme undue stress. Babies/toddlers will gradually become independent at their own pace, (such as sleeping alone) and it is so much less stressful for them than to abandon them to cry in a crib. It won't be as convenient for the "career woman" though.
Meaningless. As I have said a couple of times already, feeding schedules do not let the baby go hungry at all.
Thank you for arguing my side! They are far smarter than most give them credit for. And a baby who get a full night of sleep it not only smart but happy. As are the parents who also get a full night’s sleep and find it much easier to manage their children.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
erinmarie
New member
Hi, just to get back to the thread as well, I'm reposting my post #ummmmm 111.....
Originally posted by erinmarie
Hello Catty! I have a little time and I think I may be qualified to answer you about co-sleeping, being that I practice it with both of my daughters, and am an advocate of it in the correct instances.
I wrote a column for my staff writer position at a local paper, essays essentially, and all 6 I have written have been related to a parenting issue. In responding to your post, I will be using an excerpt from my essay.
There are two sides to every disagreement, and regarding co-sleeping there is no lack of opposing views. Depending on what you are reading or who you are speaking with, co-sleeping is either "passive abuse" or a wonderful experience, positive for the whole family. I think the people who find co-sleeping to be abhorent in some way are wrong, and perhaps not very knowledgeable about parenting in the first place, but that's their opinion and I don't have a problem with it on any moral level.
I do however have a problem with people telling me that I shouldn't be practicing co-sleeping, or that it is wrong, or harmful and in that instance I become a little defensive (I'm not implying that anyone on this thread has done that *yet*)
Here are some examples why co-sleeping (albeit bot for every family), can benefit some families:
"Theories abound as to why most children sleep more soundly with their parents. The fundamental reason may be quite simply that children feel more relaxed and secure when they are close to the most important people in their lives. Although a majority of parents are able to accept a young child's strong dependency needs during the day, American culture expects even the tiniest infant to "shut down" at bedtime for a period equaling the average adult's nightly sleep requirement -- in spite of the fact that most adults, given the choice, prefer not to sleep alone. Katherine Dettwyler, Ph.D., award-winning anthropologist, infant nutrition specialist, and co-editor of Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives contends that in the United States, "Parents want to promote independence in children at the earliest possible age. Parents are always being encouraged to leave their baby with sitters and get him to sleep through the night. People want to be able to essentially turn their children off at seven or eight p.m. and not have to deal with them until the next morning. "
According to Dettwyler, American parenting culture appears to resent the amount of time it takes to properly nurture a child, particularly if that child has needs when a parent would rather be asleep. However, according child development experts who favor family sleep-sharing, parents who put their children in a crib down the hall and expect them to stay there quietly until morning may be risking their child's emotional health. A child who does not receive warmth and reassurance when she asks for it can develop a range of attachment and trust disorders, whether the parents' failure to respond comes at noon or midnight. “I am my daughter's parent twenty-four hours a day," says Marsha Franklin. "I can’t expect her to adhere to a predetermined schedule for needing a hug or a drink of water." "
I have many other excerpts to respond to any questions, and some opinions as well, I just thought I would start out with this.
the Sibbie
New member
Ok! We get it! Enough with the re-pos already!!! :chuckle:
- Status