Are Children more powerful then adults?

[Ishtar Shakti]

In a sense when I am around children there energy and affect on the world seems a bit greater even if its a bit more uncontrolled. I'm talking energetically of course.

In anycase this got me thinking. Adults seem to have a narrow view of the world. They have concepts which they cling to and this in a way either makes them strong or weak energetically depending on the nature of the concepts and how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

Though children... their emotions almost everything about them screams life and vibrancy. It makes me wonder about which path is proper. Path as In Choice, doctrines to which we follow.

It seems like we are forced to follow certain doctrines in order to facilitate life, they are tools which we use and adopt to get by. Walls if built thick enough can be exceedingly strong... beliefs concepts idea's if built with enough foundation can hold out against any amount of pushing or prodding. But it also limits the amount of push that people have, the amount of change that they can make.
Children though energetically have almost unlimited spectrums. Until they are told over and over again through subtle reinforcement what is and is not possible they have unlimited potential if not perhaps unlimited push. Because they don't have concepts and idea's its hard for them to structure their world and thus hard for them to pay attention and continually try to make change and thus change doesn't necessarily happen. Its a type of power... and an interesting one.

Just wondering what your views of the un-indoctrinated were. These are just my meandering thoughts.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Ishtar Shakti

In a sense when I am around children there energy and affect on the world seems a bit greater even if its a bit more uncontrolled. I'm talking energetically of course.

I don't feel there is a way to really say one way or the other. I feel that the energy is different, which isn't always a matter of how much energy there is.

Ishtar Shakti

In anycase this got me thinking. Adults seem to have a narrow view of the world. They have concepts which they cling to and this in a way either makes them strong or weak energetically depending on the nature of the concepts and how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

I feel children have an even narrower view, since their perspective contains only an internal frame of reference as they develop. Adults have external frames of reference, internal frames of reference and can understand the difference between the two if they so choose.

I feel that often times adults idealize children because of the responsibilities that come with adulthood, so it's natural that they would see children differently than they are.

Ishtar Shakti

Though children... their emotions almost everything about them screams life and vibrancy. It makes me wonder about which path is proper. Path as In Choice, doctrines to which we follow.

I suppose my experience with children has been very different from yours. The children I see on a regular basis are violent cruel people because they have not developed the empathy adults use to treat one another with respect.

My friends however, are more vibrant and lively though- embracing art and community as a daily celebration of their joy.

Ishtar Shakti

It seems like we are forced to follow certain doctrines in order to facilitate life, they are tools which we use and adopt to get by. Walls if built thick enough can be exceedingly strong... beliefs concepts idea's if built with enough foundation can hold out against any amount of pushing or prodding. But it also limits the amount of push that people have, the amount of change that they can make.

I feel this is healthy. Those same walls keep us from bleeding ourselves.
We can still make choices, but we have developed an immunity to unhealthy things and built up defenses against them.

I feel that often when we look at the differences between a child and an adult, the needs of a child belong to those years of youth. We have a responsibility to them to care for them when they can't care for themselves. But we also have to teach them how to have boundaries and defenses against people who would use them or hurt them.

Ishtar Shakti

Children though energetically have almost unlimited spectrums. Until they are told over and over again through subtle reinforcement what is and is not possible they have unlimited potential if not perhaps unlimited push. Because they don't have concepts and idea's its hard for them to structure their world and thus hard for them to pay attention and continually try to make change and thus change doesn't necessarily happen. Its a type of power... and an interesting one.

Just wondering what your views of the un-indoctrinated were. These are just my meandering thoughts.

I feel that the perspective is sweet. I also feel that it is unrealistic because it treats children as an archetype, not as people, and people- no matter how many times the earth has turned since their birth, have challenges, graces and flaws.

My promise to my daughter and my sons is that I will give them room to be human, and support them in their growth, rather than shape them in the image of what I want them to be- even if that image is an idealized version of themselves.  

[Yanueh]

Withholding gravity from your child's curriculum will not enable him to fly.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Yanueh

Withholding gravity from your child's curriculum will not enable him to fly.

While I feel you make a good point, I also feel that the subject to hand intends to address a child's real potential.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Brass Bell Doll

Ishtar Shakti

In a sense when I am around children there energy and affect on the world seems a bit greater even if its a bit more uncontrolled. I'm talking energetically of course.

I don't feel there is a way to really say one way or the other. I feel that the energy is different, which isn't always a matter of how much energy there is.

Ishtar Shakti

In anycase this got me thinking. Adults seem to have a narrow view of the world. They have concepts which they cling to and this in a way either makes them strong or weak energetically depending on the nature of the concepts and how they fit into the greater scheme of things.

I feel children have an even narrower view, since their perspective contains only an internal frame of reference as they develop. Adults have external frames of reference, internal frames of reference and can understand the difference between the two if they so choose.

I feel that often times adults idealize children because of the responsibilities that come with adulthood, so it's natural that they would see children differently than they are.

Ishtar Shakti

Though children... their emotions almost everything about them screams life and vibrancy. It makes me wonder about which path is proper. Path as In Choice, doctrines to which we follow.

I suppose my experience with children has been very different from yours. The children I see on a regular basis are violent cruel people because they have not developed the empathy adults use to treat one another with respect.

My friends however, are more vibrant and lively though- embracing art and community as a daily celebration of their joy.

Ishtar Shakti

It seems like we are forced to follow certain doctrines in order to facilitate life, they are tools which we use and adopt to get by. Walls if built thick enough can be exceedingly strong... beliefs concepts idea's if built with enough foundation can hold out against any amount of pushing or prodding. But it also limits the amount of push that people have, the amount of change that they can make.

I feel this is healthy. Those same walls keep us from bleeding ourselves.
We can still make choices, but we have developed an immunity to unhealthy things and built up defenses against them.

I feel that often when we look at the differences between a child and an adult, the needs of a child belong to those years of youth. We have a responsibility to them to care for them when they can't care for themselves. But we also have to teach them how to have boundaries and defenses against people who would use them or hurt them.

Ishtar Shakti

Children though energetically have almost unlimited spectrums. Until they are told over and over again through subtle reinforcement what is and is not possible they have unlimited potential if not perhaps unlimited push. Because they don't have concepts and idea's its hard for them to structure their world and thus hard for them to pay attention and continually try to make change and thus change doesn't necessarily happen. Its a type of power... and an interesting one.

Just wondering what your views of the un-indoctrinated were. These are just my meandering thoughts.

I feel that the perspective is sweet. I also feel that it is unrealistic because it treats children as an archetype, not as people, and people- no matter how many times the earth has turned since their birth, have challenges, graces and flaws.

My promise to my daughter and my sons is that I will give them room to be human, and support them in their growth, rather than shape them in the image of what I want them to be- even if that image is an idealized version of themselves.

... you know... I can't believe I lost everything I took an hour to write.

I don't really want to restate all the information I learned in child development classes and child psychology classes and through baby sitting and looking after other peoples kids for years and through long long discussions with people.

You can HAVE BOTH... and teaching children to fear imaginary monsters and feel bad about themselves for things which are quite natural and to limit their perceptions of themselves through guilt and social stigmatism... Does not help their sense of self and has pervasive developmental issues.

If they Can Not See through the rule to the exception then they Will Never be able to actually reach their potential. They will Not be able to see the potential. They will not even be able to articulate the thought of something existing because it does not fit within the box they are presented.

I will not go into the the development of schema and the exact process of how people learn and remember and All of that. I fricken tried to summarize a whole bunch of text books. Go Look it Up. Learning theory Fun Stuff... educational and all.

You can learn without stigma and direct guidance. Plenty of other cultures practice this way. We don't We have it crammed down our throats that our children need us to protect them when sometimes we do more harm then good. Its really a complicated point but I was more talking about Paths... ie the dark and the light the emotional and the structured and how you can have both without limiting either one. They are not contentious things...

And I think you are doing children a disservice by calling them cruel. Ignorance is not cruelty and Oblivion to other peoples existance in no way actually indicates that they want to harm that person. They Are extremely egotistical and self centered... but they are vibrant.

They give off more energy meaning the amount of energy which travels into and out of them is more then adults. Its a complicated measurement process... I won't Rewrite all that... if you want details you can PM me because I did once upon a time list all the factors but I lost the stupid message and now I'm irritated.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Two key assumptions underlie this cognitive approach: (1) that the memory system is an active organized processor of information and (2) that prior knowledge plays an important role in learning

Many would agree that people learn better when they can build on what they already understand (known as a schema), but the more a person has to learn in a shorter amount of time, the more difficult it is to process that information in working memory

The less schema's the higher the cognitive load the more difficult it is to process information

Another aspect of cognitive load theory involves understanding how many discrete units of information can be retained in short term memory before information loss occurs. An example of this principle that seems to be commonly cited is the use of 7-digit phone numbers, based on the theory that most people can only retain seven "chunks" of information in their short term memory.

Sooo schema's are important...
I'm talking about Rigid Schema's as being a negative trait.
I'm all for the schema's as a way to conceptualize information. It lowers the amount of information people have to process so that they can deal with more complex information. I Got that. Don't worry.

I'm more a constructivist though...

Constructivist learning, therefore, is a very personal endeavor, whereby internalized concepts, rules, and general principles may consequently be applied in a practical real-world context

encourages students to discover principles for themselves and to construct knowledge by working to solve realistic problems

I just rant sometimes... mostly when dealing with adults... because I put them in a different category. Generally speaking when dealing with adults they already have a rigid schema. They have a certain set way of dealing and processing information which hinders them being able to process information and solve problems. Its Quite Frustrating.

In a way I think it is nice that Children don't Have this. What they can learn what they can decide is pretty maleable. I more agree with you in saying that you Shouldn't tell your children what to learn. I don't think we should guide them. I think they will inevitably figure things out and that all you really need is to make the information available and to answer questions to the best of your ability.

I've Always held to a learning approach especially for myself that relied on hands on learning and that I wanted to learn the hard way wherein I understood all the underlying principals rather then relying on a schema. Its how I tought myself through school its how I study history and science and pretty much anything and I flounder when it comes to anything that has me rely on a formula in order to solve a problem. Pretty much its better to explain why something works then to tell a person something works.

I like to Delve into why

THis: "But we also have to teach them how to have boundaries and defenses against people who would use them or hurt them."

Conflicts with This: "My promise to my daughter and my sons is that I will give them room to be human, and support them in their growth, rather than shape them in the image of what I want them to be- even if that image is an idealized version of themselves."
When our beliefs as to what is Harmful is subject to our bias and opinion and may in some cases stunt their growth and ability to be themselves. Not all the things that we consider harm are harmful. Some of them are culturally evaluated norms which we have been indoctrinated into that in and of themselves do nothing.

We Also impart upon them a million other things very carelessly I might add that Do shape and regulate growth and sense of self and in some cases may harm self. I read an interesting article the other day about different cultures and views on the subject and how other cultures do not actively interfere and try to guide and shape their childrens lives. Their children figure out for themselves what works and what doesn't. Its a learning process...

Social stigma exists though in all cultures... its just interesting hearing other approaches to child rearing in application.

What actually would be best... is a horribly horribly complicated subject. I'm pretty sure there are enough ******** up people in this world that I want to be Very careful whenever I do raise to allow for a good solid logical yet flexible foundation. Thus my child will be able to test and understand each possible value system and incorporate it or not how they see fit. I think that logic in and of itself essentially allows for flexibility because it allows for situational shifts built on alternating changing patterns.

The same answer doesn't always work for every situation It Depends  

[Kuroiban]

Amusing side note: The first thought in my mind was "Well, the 8-16 demo has a lot of buying power these days."

I would say it really depends on the nature of the person in question rather then age.  

[Yanueh]

There's actually a very good reason for teaching our children the methods we have developed for ourselves: it potentially saves them a lot of time and energy. If we made our children learn everything from scratch every generation, we'd have never gotten so far as to invent the bow and arrow, let alone the wheel. For the human species, spreading one's memes can be just as vital as spreading one's genes.

Sometimes the emphasis is shifted from the importance of what the memes do to the memes themselves. The result is dogmatic thinking, and that isn't necessarily so good.

Quote:

I want to be Very careful whenever I do raise to allow for a good solid logical yet flexible foundation.

Like Daniel Florien?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Ishtar Shakti

... you know... I can't believe I lost everything I took an hour to write.

I have lost similar posts. I use firefox and I am beginning to feel this update was poorly put together.

Ishtar Shakti

I don't really want to restate all the information I learned in child development classes and child psychology classes and through baby sitting and looking after other peoples kids for years and through long long discussions with people.

You can HAVE BOTH... and teaching children to fear imaginary monsters and feel bad about themselves for things which are quite natural and to limit their perceptions of themselves through guilt and social stigmatism... Does not help their sense of self and has pervasive developmental issues.

If they Can Not See through the rule to the exception then they Will Never be able to actually reach their potential. They will Not be able to see the potential. They will not even be able to articulate the thought of something existing because it does not fit within the box they are presented.

This is very true. But part of the foundation of developmental psychology is that there has to be a metaphorical immunity developed to the outside world as well as empathy.

Without those walls, the child does not develop a healthy sense of self. Without empathy, the child does not develop the means to treat others with dignity. A very young child has no problem physically attacking another to get a toy they want. They do not think in terms of "pulling my hair hurts me, so if I pull their hair, it will cause them a similar pain and they do not deserve that." That is something that is learned over time and through good parenting.

Ishtar Shakti

I will not go into the the development of schema and the exact process of how people learn and remember and All of that. I fricken tried to summarize a whole bunch of text books. Go Look it Up. Learning theory Fun Stuff... educational and all.

I have. Like you, I have taken university level courses on the subject. I feel that for the most part we are in agreement, with the only major difference being that I do not idealize children into an archetype of innocence and potential, instead I see innocence and potential as real parts of humanity, not limited to childhood.

Ishtar Shakti

You can learn without stigma and direct guidance. Plenty of other cultures practice this way. We don't We have it crammed down our throats that our children need us to protect them when sometimes we do more harm then good. Its really a complicated point but I was more talking about Paths... ie the dark and the light the emotional and the structured and how you can have both without limiting either one. They are not contentious things...

And I think you are doing children a disservice by calling them cruel. Ignorance is not cruelty and Oblivion to other peoples existance in no way actually indicates that they want to harm that person. They Are extremely egotistical and self centered... but they are vibrant.

And I feel there is an equal disservice when we suggest that children aren't capable of an emotional expression and intention simply because we do not wish to associate it with them.

Children are selfish and egotistical. They are the center of their own universe and the process for shifting that can take a very long time. But I feel to suggest that they cannot be cruel because they are children is to dehumanize them.

Ishtar Shakti

They give off more energy meaning the amount of energy which travels into and out of them is more then adults. Its a complicated measurement process... I won't Rewrite all that... if you want details you can PM me because I did once upon a time list all the factors but I lost the stupid message and now I'm irritated.

I am sorry for your frustration. I share that, having spent several hours on a thread I was making only to loose it to the ether.

I would like to read your thoughts on the matter and give them consideration. All I can say for now is that this isn't my observation, but that might be because I do not see children as an archetype, and instead look more at a given child compared to a given adult. While I am sure there are many vibrant children, and am equally sure there are many vibrant adults.

Ishtar Shakti

Two key assumptions underlie this cognitive approach: (1) that the memory system is an active organized processor of information and (2) that prior knowledge plays an important role in learning

Many would agree that people learn better when they can build on what they already understand (known as a schema), but the more a person has to learn in a shorter amount of time, the more difficult it is to process that information in working memory

The less schema's the higher the cognitive load the more difficult it is to process information

Another aspect of cognitive load theory involves understanding how many discrete units of information can be retained in short term memory before information loss occurs. An example of this principle that seems to be commonly cited is the use of 7-digit phone numbers, based on the theory that most people can only retain seven "chunks" of information in their short term memory.

I apologize, but this isn't making sense.
Short term memory is measured in seconds, so I do not understand how you are relating this to the development of understandings when the information is transmitted into working memory.

Ishtar Shakti

Sooo schema's are important...
I'm talking about Rigid Schema's as being a negative trait.
I'm all for the schema's as a way to conceptualize information. It lowers the amount of information people have to process so that they can deal with more complex information. I Got that. Don't worry.

I'm more a constructivist though...

Constructivist learning, therefore, is a very personal endeavor, whereby internalized concepts, rules, and general principles may consequently be applied in a practical real-world context

encourages students to discover principles for themselves and to construct knowledge by working to solve realistic problems

I just rant sometimes... mostly when dealing with adults... because I put them in a different category. Generally speaking when dealing with adults they already have a rigid schema. They have a certain set way of dealing and processing information which hinders them being able to process information and solve problems. Its Quite Frustrating.

I feel it is also possible that the schema that you use to form your opinions about how adults interact is so rigid it may hamper your ability to effectively communicate since I feel that the way you have addressed me even here is placing a value based not on my responses to you, but instead is based on how you have categorized me.

Ishtar Shakti

In a way I think it is nice that Children don't Have this. What they can learn what they can decide is pretty maleable. I more agree with you in saying that you Shouldn't tell your children what to learn. I don't think we should guide them. I think they will inevitably figure things out and that all you really need is to make the information available and to answer questions to the best of your ability.

And I feel that the damage a child can cause through their development should me moderated.

I would much rather explore with my daughter why her actions are hurtful to others so she can develop empathy rather than simply hoping she stumbles upon it on her own.

Ishtar Shakti

I've Always held to a learning approach especially for myself that relied on hands on learning and that I wanted to learn the hard way wherein I understood all the underlying principals rather then relying on a schema.

I have a deep respect for that. I feel part of the problem when we make statements about how others learn that we are quick to project our preference onto others.

I choose to see children as individuals with their own ways of learning best. I see it as our job to understand how this takes place for children and facilitate that.

Ishtar Shakti

Its how I tought myself through school its how I study history and science and pretty much anything and I flounder when it comes to anything that has me rely on a formula in order to solve a problem. Pretty much its better to explain why something works then to tell a person something works.

Are you a Sagittarius by chance?

Ishtar Shakti

I like to Delve into why

THis: "But we also have to teach them how to have boundaries and defenses against people who would use them or hurt them."

Conflicts with This: "My promise to my daughter and my sons is that I will give them room to be human, and support them in their growth, rather than shape them in the image of what I want them to be- even if that image is an idealized version of themselves."
When our beliefs as to what is Harmful is subject to our bias and opinion and may in some cases stunt their growth and ability to be themselves. Not all the things that we consider harm are harmful. Some of them are culturally evaluated norms which we have been indoctrinated into that in and of themselves do nothing.

I do not feel it is a conflict at all, but I understand how someone might think it is. Allow me to explain.

I will not degrade my children for their mistakes. They're human after all, and their worth is not dependent on them being exactly as I wish them to be. I will correct them when they make a mistake to show that some behavior isn't okay. There is a vast difference.

Ishtar Shakti

We Also impart upon them a million other things very carelessly I might add that Do shape and regulate growth and sense of self and in some cases may harm self. I read an interesting article the other day about different cultures and views on the subject and how other cultures do not actively interfere and try to guide and shape their childrens lives. Their children figure out for themselves what works and what doesn't. Its a learning process...

Social stigma exists though in all cultures... its just interesting hearing other approaches to child rearing in application.

What actually would be best... is a horribly horribly complicated subject. I'm pretty sure there are enough ******** up people in this world that I want to be Very careful whenever I do raise to allow for a good solid logical yet flexible foundation. Thus my child will be able to test and understand each possible value system and incorporate it or not how they see fit. I think that logic in and of itself essentially allows for flexibility because it allows for situational shifts built on alternating changing patterns.

The same answer doesn't always work for every situation It Depends

I completely agree. There are no universal answers. However, children need to understand boundaries and have walls. When a young girl starts to develop into a young woman, she needs to feel safe in her development. If she is groped by a boy who has not been given boundaries and taught that empathy is important in understanding how to treat others, her right to feel safe is damaged by the boy who has no empathy for her.

I do not feel it is right to allow that kind of behavior to go simply because a child may choose that their selfishness is more important than other's safety. This is a very innocent act- but it isn't a good one for all the harm it does.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

In the other post I wrote I went into how they could be cruel but it is more that usually if the intention is not there I would not consider that cruelty.

What I see on a day to day basis I would not consider cruelty. Especially when the person does not have a concept of others pain. Cruelty as well as empathy relies on the ability to recognize someone as another being. Children haven't learned this yet.

I am not trying to romanticize them. They Are innocent and they do have potential... (in my view) past lives nature and nurture may limit potential and affect it and redirect it. Innocence is a lack of knowledge or awareness. As a person develops this is something inherently lost. If they act they cannot process the consequences and thus are not culpable.

I know not what I Do. That is the definition of innocence... but as they age they do things on purpose. Of course people are not all knowing soo A Degree of it remains through out life through every instance of ignorance. This of course is not using the court definition of having done no wrong.

The second a child starts learning their slate isn't clean thus they can never truly be innocent again. Not completely. It depends the age and development of the child how innocent they are.

Selfish and egotistical seems a better over all adjective then cruel as children usually know not what they do is wrong or causes pain. The second they do understand That is when they are cruel. Intentional.

It didn't make sense because mostly I was copying and pasting what I considered relevant foundational information to the conversation.
I meant to write wikipedia under it. I was pulling an all nighter and didn't really take the time to edit it or reread and add cohesion.

It more has to do with trying to understand how people think over all and the amount of information that is lost and stored is important for understanding how people think and develop schema's All units of memory and information processing are linked so they work in tandem. This constant sifting of information and reliance on schema's and schema creation recall reliance in order to grasp broader and more complex subjects.
It was more to illustrate the limits of memory and the necessity of schema's

Hmmm.... I actually don't think I have categorized you as anything accept an adult who most likely has a working concept of the world. You have left the developmental stages. I was more talking about people that I have known who have psychological issues. Most of the time it is at the root some set way of percieving the world which is rigid that they cling to even though it goes against logic or outside evidence. Most adults though do have a rigid schema or two which is deeply rooted in some sort of belief system in which case they do not go into a deeper, or want to, understand the concept in any way other then the way they already do. Habituation. Generally the younger a person is the more flexible they are and the less roots it has taken (creating supporting evidence or furthering knowledge based on suppositions which then reinforce the supposition)

This is only explored through getting into very long conversations with people about specific beliefs and is not usually expressed at all in casual conversation unless a person has pervasive ideological perspectives.
Soo not really talking about casual interaction. I mean you can still see reliance on schema's in all speech patterns suppositions etc. Everyone does it... but usually you don't strike upon Rigid ones just ones that people use commonly.

Asking her questions is not telling her anything. Its much like therapy... you sometimes give people words which you think they might be trying to use to express their emotions. Thats giving them information... its providing them with a step vs. what I have seen many people do and where in they tell a child something they did was bad. I prefer to tell a child look see that person is hurt? Why would you want to hurt them? Don't you know what hurt was like
Vs. telling a child No we don't do that

I'm pretty sure thats what you are describing as a way to act but the words you are using seem harsh to me concerning the children themselves. I don't believe I would let a child harm another child in front of me. I do believe by doing this I Am limiting the childs development and in some ways preventing them from realizing their own reasons why they shouldn't hurt another child by intercepting them. In such a way I am imposing my beliefs on the child even if it is in what I feel is a constructive manner and I am in some way limiting their development even though I think it is a positive limitation. I don't currently have the self discipline that would be needed to actually Follow that path to the letter. By our existence we impose our desires on others. Its a very hard thing Not to do.

Its a culture I was not raised in... my parenting skills mostly agree with you. My gut reaction is to correct is to do exactly what your describing but I am aware of the affects this may have pervasively developmentally. It is a limit I would most likely impose because I am convinced it is right and proper but if it is truly right or proper I know that that decision can be found on its own without me imposing my judgments on the child.

The difference is Telling vs. Saying. The concept is teaching from a passive non intrusive standpoint constantly being willing to provide information and guidance without using coersion or punishment. Its extremely difficult method.

In anycase most of this was more supposed to be a discussion of paths vs children. Children were just an example that I thought other people would be cognizant of.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Kuroiban

Amusing side note: The first thought in my mind was "Well, the 8-16 demo has a lot of buying power these days."

I would say it really depends on the nature of the person in question rather then age.

whadda what now?
How so? I find that nature is more set as people age.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Yanueh

There's actually a very good reason for teaching our children the methods we have developed for ourselves: it potentially saves them a lot of time and energy. If we made our children learn everything from scratch every generation, we'd have never gotten so far as to invent the bow and arrow, let alone the wheel. For the human species, spreading one's memes can be just as vital as spreading one's genes.

Sometimes the emphasis is shifted from the importance of what the memes do to the memes themselves. The result is dogmatic thinking, and that isn't necessarily so good.

Quote:

I want to be Very careful whenever I do raise to allow for a good solid logical yet flexible foundation.

Like Daniel Florien?

Well I did find that blog amsuing... and kind of wondered the same thing about the Republican gay night club... I'm not sure how it fits?

I guess I do believe in a healthy amount of aethism in anyones belief system though. I've never seen that blog before. I'm a bit... out of the general cultural waves.

I'm not against teaching... just saying that it does limit their development to a degree... I'm more against the use of the word No.  

[Yanueh]

If you can dig up the parts about his parenting, it's really quite hilarious.

Especially how he used Santa Claus to introduce them to critical thinking. xd  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Yanueh

If you can dig up the parts about his parenting, it's really quite hilarious.

Especially how he used Santa Claus to introduce them to critical thinking. xd

Oh my...! Yah... I think I would rather teach my children the joys of giving gifts to people vs. santa claus. I will have to peruse it a bit. That is going on facebook  

[Yanueh]

Another thing he often does is give is kids answers that are obviously baloney so they'll get used to the idea that "authority" figures are not infallible.