Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unusual ways Western parents raise children

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 684 posts

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#661

Post by heleninboodler »

NovaJehovah wrote: post #658
throwaway_prnts wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think I did anything wrong > it’s not like I was throwing out insults > I don’t view downvotes as any indication of comment quality I am not saying you are being downvoted because people feel shame, I said you are downvoted because you are shaming them. You are accusing others of knowingly harming their kids, because they don't care about them as much as you do. I don't think this is fundamentally different…

Your argument seems to be that questioning the morality of anything an otherwise well-meaning person does and might be sensitive about is “shaming” and “insulting” and an attempt to “control” the person. That strikes me as very opposed to the principles of free speech and open debate. You’re the one that keeps using the word “shame”. That was not my purpose. I responded to the implication that there can be no good or…

> Your argument seems to be that questioning the morality of anything an otherwise well-meaning person does and might be sensitive about is “shaming” and “insulting” and an attempt to “control” the person.

One thing to note about your argumentation style here is that you didn't merely question their morality. You assumed that deep-down, they actually agree with you but were acting immorally anyway, and you continued from there. The news flash is that no, people don't believe that what they are doing is wrong. The fact that they find it painful does not mean that they know deep down it's wrong, as you erroneously claim. Doing the right thing can just be painful sometimes.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#662

Post by throwaway_prnts »

NovaJehovah wrote: post #660
throwaway_prnts wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess when you say things like this: > I certainly have more respect for someone who does sleep training because they think it's best for the child, rather than for themselves. Of course, everyone will say that's why they're doing it > I also think the reason people don't dig deeper is that they, perhaps unconsciously, would rather not discover something that is uncomfortable and inconvenient for them > I just hope…

I don’t think those statements apply to e.g. everyone who uses sleep training, and I never said they did. But I know of parents who all those statements would apply to. It’s currently quite socially acceptable to prioritize your own ego, ambition, and indulgence over a child’s wellbeing, and plenty of people take advantage. Attitudes like GP that I first replied to are part of why these people feel justified. None of…

An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone's character, instead of their ideas or behavior. If you criticize sleep training because it is bad for the child and explain why, that is ordinary criticism and argument. If you insinuate that people who do sleep training do not care about their children, that is ad hominem.

To use another example: if I explained your behavior in this thread by claiming that you are a narcissist who holds yourself above others and so feels they have the right to (verbally) punish others, has trouble seeing any personal faults, and easily sees character flaws in others, that would be an ad-hominem. I have not done that, because I don't know you and your motivations, it wouldn't be constructive, and most people aren't narcissists. But similarly, most people care about their children, and arguing that they disagree with you because they don't care enough is not constructive.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#663

Post by NovaJehovah »

throwaway_prnts wrote: post #662
NovaJehovah wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think those statements apply to e.g. everyone who uses sleep training, and I never said they did. But I know of parents who all those statements would apply to. It’s currently quite socially acceptable to prioritize your own ego, ambition, and indulgence over a child’s wellbeing, and plenty of people take advantage. Attitudes like GP that I first replied to are part of why these people feel justified. None of…

An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone's character, instead of their ideas or behavior. If you criticize sleep training because it is bad for the child and explain why, that is ordinary criticism and argument. If you insinuate that people who do sleep training do not care about their children, that is ad hominem. To use another example: if I explained your behavior in this thread by claiming that you are a n…

That’s not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem means attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument. If the argument involves issues that might reflect on a person’s character, it is not an ad hominem to discuss those issues.

It’s kind of funny, because ad hominem is exactly what you yourself are doing. You aren’t objecting to the substance of any of my points—you’re just complaining that I wasn’t considerate enough of everyone’s feelings in my delivery and that it makes me a jerk. Even a narcissistic jerk apparently—pulling out the big guns!

I also never said that people who do sleep training “don’t care about their children” and it’s rather dishonest for you to keep repeating it. I think there is often a self-absorption issue which is encouraged by our culture, but it’s not the same thing.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#664

Post by heleninboodler »

NovaJehovah wrote: post #663
throwaway_prnts wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ad hominem attack is when you attack someone's character, instead of their ideas or behavior. If you criticize sleep training because it is bad for the child and explain why, that is ordinary criticism and argument. If you insinuate that people who do sleep training do not care about their children, that is ad hominem. To use another example: if I explained your behavior in this thread by claiming that you are a n…

That’s not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem means attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument. If the argument involves issues that might reflect on a person’s character, it is not an ad hominem to discuss those issues. It’s kind of funny, because ad hominem is exactly what you yourself are doing. You aren’t objecting to the substance of any of my points—you’re jus…

The fact that you think GP called you narcissistic or a jerk really explains why it's futile to argue with you. You seem to have misread everything about the post you're responding to, including the complete agreement on what an ad hominem is.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#665

Post by _carbyau_ »

tobib wrote: post #588
_carbyau_ wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Fortunately my wife's University employer provides 14 weeks full pay, then 38 weeks 60% paid maternity leave. I would still argue that society needs to figure a way to balance this out for both the male and female partnership(IE figure out a way for men to participate in equal fashion for that year) but that hasn't happened. As it is, we're grateful for this much compared to what many have.

Many countries other than the US have figured it out, maybe something to aspire.

Well the universities in Australia are as per described. Most of the rest of society is minimum legal standards of "not really enough".

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#666

Post by [deleted] »

heleninboodler wrote: post #661
NovaJehovah wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument seems to be that questioning the morality of anything an otherwise well-meaning person does and might be sensitive about is “shaming” and “insulting” and an attempt to “control” the person. That strikes me as very opposed to the principles of free speech and open debate. You’re the one that keeps using the word “shame”. That was not my purpose. I responded to the implication that there can be no good or…

> Your argument seems to be that questioning the morality of anything an otherwise well-meaning person does and might be sensitive about is “shaming” and “insulting” and an attempt to “control” the person. One thing to note about your argumentation style here is that you didn't merely question their morality. You assumed that deep-down, they actually agree with you but were acting immorally anyway, and you continued…

[deleted]

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#667

Post by forgotmypw17 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #636
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a pretty extreme view... But when navigating a narrow ridge like that, books can wait and I'm definitely following my gut.

Sure. But on the actual trail, you can see the edges. In parenting, you can't, and it takes you years to realize that you fell off it.

I certainly see what you're saying, and it's great to expose yourself to both side of the argument, but I don't agree that you should go against your gut feeling.

Otherwise you put yourself at high risk doing stupid shit just because it is majority consensus du jour.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#668

Post by blablaat »

In Thailand (and most of Asia I guess) most parents share the bed with their baby up to a few years old or even longer. Mother and child on bed, father on the ground or opposite. Also a matter of available space. But for sure helps the bonding process to stay close to your little one. Sex life will suffer as a result I guess... Most times family is around the child all the time. Group behavior is spoon fed. And I do agree: a separate room for a new born is madness. Mother and child stay together. You see it in the animal kingdom, and that's what we are. Also nothing wrong with a plain mattress on the floor. No falling down risk, no bars, freedom. Be careful with bedding as usual.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#669

Post by watwut »

meowster wrote: post #490
watwut wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think the person you responded to was thinking about driving vs busses. Basically, you are 16 and want to spend whole weekend out of house including during the night. Not doing it without parental permission seems normal to me. Nor it seems new. My gradma or grandpa definitely could not just spend whole night and weekend away just by own decision. They would expect my parents to ask them for permission. I was…

Mine was default allow, his was default block. I had to inform, he had to get permission. Perhaps same result, but one feels more autonomous than the other. From another one of my comments: > I always just told my parent that I was doing something just so they knew where I was - not necessarily asking for permission, but that gave them the chance to veto it (which they only did one time as punishment when I got in tr…

I dont think it necessary implies default block. It just implies you have to ask before comitting to activity. Whether the parents are more likely to say yes or no is orthogonal.

Also, we are talking here about overnight camping. It is not the same out for few hours. 16 years old being expected to sleep at home by default does not strike me as overly controlling.

Re: The unusual ways Western parents raise children

#670

Post by Pyramus »

kkwteh wrote: post #449
Pyramus wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating how classic research from the 40s has been turned on its head completely. Would be interesting to see parent's response.

I can think of some rather obvious reasons why Kanner would reframe his position publicly. It's just way too taboo. Kanner said that his believed autism had a genetic basis. I think it's a cop-out, as I don't think it makes any sense to blame genetics for the sudden appearance and dramatic rise of autism (and other childhood disorders) over the timespan of a few decades, even if genetics may certainly play a role in…

From the article and his papers it seems he never changed his opinion, but that he was being misrepresented 180 degrees, and that you, in good faith, believed that was his position.

I also don't see evidence he claimed it is only genetic reasons.

What he hypothesised (supported by current scientific understanding according to [1]) was that both autism and parenting behaviours have a common cause (genetics) making it a prime example for correlation does not imply causation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

Post reply on HN