[hackoder]

Thank you for that voice of reason.

You make two very good points here and in your other post.

1) Kids are different. There is a whole spectrum of right and wrong decisions depending on what your kid is like. Would anyone suggest that the same methods would work with a kid who is stubborn and one who is easy going?

2) These decisions depend on a kid's age. A 2-5 year old is not logical or rational, and can do outrageous things just to see how you would react. Don't deceive them, let them be kids, yadda yadda are almost funny to read. Like you said, walk a mile in the parents' shoes.

Anyway, getting back to the original post, I do see an issue with this approach (to parenting, not the technical solutions): I'd rather solve the bigger problem of the kids not listening to what the parent is saying rather than fixing this single instance. On the other hand, it is easy for kids to get rowdy without realizing it and this method seems to fix that particular issue well.

[neumann_alfred]

Don't deceive them, let them be kids, yadda yadda are almost funny to read. Like you said, walk a mile in the parents' shoes.

Or, have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you. Of course, since such gifted parents are rare, it's easy to simply dismiss such a high standard. But once you go non-bullshit, it's just hard to go back.

[incision]

>Or, have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you. Of course, since such gifted parents are rare, it's easy to simply dismiss such a high standard. But once you go non-bullshit, it's just hard to go back.

It's interesting that you're responding from the perspective of a child to a statement from the perspective of a parent.

Do you have children?

[neumann_alfred]

It's interesting that you're responding from the perspective of a child to a statement from the perspective of a parent.

Yeah, it's almost as if it's a relationship between two humans, instead of a one-way input pipe.

Do you have children?

What makes you ask? That I respect kids more than quite a bunch of folks who are actually raising some? Or is that just an attempt to dismiss what I said without addressing it? That shit is getting real old.

[CodeMage]

What makes you ask?

I don't know why @incision asked, so I can't speak for him or her. However, I know why I would ask you the same question: I would be curious whether you were simply speaking out of profound ignorance and entitlement or whether there was actually any credibility to back up your stance.

That I respect kids more than quite a bunch of folks who are actually raising some?

This has nothing to do with respect and a lot to do with hard-earned experience, which you don't have. And I say hard-earned because there's no decent parent out there that doesn't regret a whole lot of mistakes they made while they were bringing up their kids. Your attitude of moral superiority is not only undeserved, but it's also quite insulting.

Or is that just an attempt to dismiss what I said without addressing it? That shit is getting real old.

Is it? Funny, from where I stand, it looks like you were coming up with criticism and theories you never bothered to verify in any way, just because you feel entitled and I can tell you: that shit has been ancient before I was born.

I suggest you read Steve Yegge's "Have you ever legalized marijuana?" [1] or, if you're short on time, a relevant XKCD [2].

[1]: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...

[2]: http://xkcd.com/793/

[neumann_alfred]

from where I stand, it looks like you were coming up with criticism and theories you never bothered to verify in any way

?

"have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you"

And I run into PLENTY of adults who just tried to use their privilege, or lies, for shortcut solutions. I know how they fared. So what exactly don't I have experience with, other than doing it to someone else?

"I suggest you read Steve Yegge's"

I suggest you actually address the content of my posts.

[incision]

That's what I thought.

You're a troll.

You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote. You just spat out a couple of emotional, condescending quips, likely in hopes of teasing out another abstract argument [1].

1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5156930

[neumann_alfred]

That's what I thought.

You're a troll.

Maybe stop thinking that for a second and pretend you are actually supposed to give me an actual answer. I mean, it's neat and easy and all that, I understand, but you're flat out wrong and that you are just looking at an exit while being unintentionally ironic. I am not teasing these abstract arguments, I am time and time telling you stop with the logical fallacies and generalities, give me the argument for this situation. I also love how you hold exactly the BS responses I complain about, including yours, against me.

You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote.

Right, and while you're lying you think you might just keep on with it, huh? Nope. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5156988

So you would rather talk about the messenger, than the message, also ignoring that some people with kids say the same fucking thing. Well, I already established that, too, the question is how often are you going to repeat proving it?

[ahupp]

Or, they did the same stuff when you were 4 but being an irrational 4 year old you never noticed.