Replies

The exchange so far:

me "1. going out in the cold without a jacket "OK, I'll just keep it handy, tell me when you are cold and want it." 2. trying to let go of my hand when crossing a street..... Picked them up, carried them across"

papertyger: "How is this discipline, the object of which is to inculcate self-regulation? All you did iis restrain them from that which you didn't approve...."

response: the jacket incident demonstrated that my judgment could be trusted and that I trusted their common sense. It worked.

crossing the street simply is how one responds when the danger was beyond their comprehension.

papertyger: "Moeover, how do you practice your method on multiple children simultaneously?"

How do you spank several children simultaneously?

response: the jacket incident demonstrated that my judgment could be trusted and that I trusted their common sense. It worked.

crossing the street simply is how one responds when the danger was beyond their comprehension.

As I said, that is not discipline. You don't seem to grasp the distinction that compliance with your wishes is not the goal of discipline. Not that that surprises me.

I have met many a parent that took great pride in their disdain for corporal punishment, and every single one of them were too self absorbed to notice their *gentle* means of discipline was more barbaric than use of the "rod." Every single one of them practiced "emotional terrorism" to metaphorically arm-twist their children into compliance with the parent's wishes. Of course this makes the parent's life easier, but it doesn't do a damn thing for the kids except make them very adept at pleasing the parents.

Furthermore, in my experience, the marks left by *that* kind of "discipline," while outwardly invisible, last far into adulthood and taint every relationship to some extent.

How do you spank several children simultaneously?

You don't have to spank simultaneously, because the infraction, judgment, punishment loop is so short as to be *functionally* simultaneous.