3 ms·
It also implies that: 3) Children never argue in bad faith (e.g. as a hourslong stalling tactic at bedtime) 4) Children never argue during time sensitive disa
by ip26 2y ago
It also implies that:
3) Children never argue in bad faith (e.g. as a hourslong stalling tactic at bedtime)
4) Children never argue during time sensitive disagreements (e.g. why do I have to get out of the street!?)
5) Children understand probability and risk-benefit analysis (e.g. why shouldn't I play the knife game, I'm not going to cut myself and it's fun)
I've also discovered leaving everything open to debate and having to convince kids of everything leaves them unprepared for life around authority figures. It is not appropriate to argue with an on-duty lifeguard about basic water safety, but a kid who has never had to follow a single command or order will try.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI guess it depends on the children. It is a good strategy for intelligent and respectful children who are capable of managing all of these factors.
- dclowd9901 2y agoNot sure why you’re being downvoted. I just spent 5 minutes arguing with my 2 year old about 1) why she needed to go to bed (it’s 10:20), and 2) why she needed to take her hands out of her nighttime diaper. To which, she rebutted with a “no” and no further discussion on her position. Guess I’m just not breaking down my argument well enough (gigantic fucking eyeroll).