So, in one sentence you say, "Lots of people like fighting", but in the very next sentence you say you "doubt the parents of that boy fight".Ecurb wrote: ↑June 21st, 2020, 10:30 amWe'll have to agree to disagree. First of all, I don't think ending "tidily" is always the desired outcome. It is true that the child was trying to be manipulative; it is not true that he was "learning to be manipulative", because his attempts at manipulation didn't work. Of course he wanted to hurt his mother (because she was hurting him by confiscating some of his toys for a week). That's why he said, "I hate you."Belindi wrote: ↑June 21st, 2020, 3:37 am
The 3 year old might possibly have been affected by what his mother said about his mother's feelings being hurt. This would not be because he felt remorse but because he felt punished by mother's disapproval. These incidents would finish more tidily if the mother consistently lays down the law to the three year old e.g. "If you don't do as I tell you I will send you to the naughty corner: will not be allowed to play with the new ball all day: I won't make your favourite pizza: etc" The three year old understands quid pro quo but is not up to speed on empathy. The child's response on the occasion you describe is he is learning to be compliant or even manipulative which is not the same as learning to be kind.
Your friend should have endured the temper tantrum and not escalated the affair to emotional blackmail.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/st ... n_0082017/
It was the 3-year-old (not the mom) who engaged in "emotional blackmail". The mom simply reacted as she would in any relationship, with an open, honest description of how her son made her feel. How is that "manipulative"? What should her reaction to emotional blackmail be?
To evolution: Lots of people like fighting, including me, when I was a kid (and even now, if you judge by my posts). I doubt the parents fight, although I'm not there all the time.
I do not know. When did anyone say this?
Not from my perspective, but then again I am NOT EVERY one, or am 'I'?
Okay, I agree. 'I' am NO body.Ecurb wrote: ↑June 21st, 2020, 10:30 amYou are nobody to suggest anything.I would suggest that if a human being in just three years, and most of that time as a baby, has already learned to "enjoy fighting" and is the one that is "causing ALL the drama", then how that infant has been handled previously, could have been done differently AND better.
But who am 'I' to suggest anything at all?
Okay.
Raising their child.
What else did you think we were talking about?
If the parents of a child are NOT responsible for the child, then who is?
If you say so. Believing this could help explain why you like fighting.
Who is the "victim" here?
From your perspective, it is the mom who is the "victim" here, correct?
If you had read into what I have been writing, or "between the lines", as they say, you can see that I have read what you have written.Ecurb wrote: ↑June 21st, 2020, 10:30 am It is true, of course, that abused women could have prevented the abuse if they behaved differently (perhaps by allowing their abusers to always get their way). But the same reasoning that blames parents for anything the child does also credits parents for the child's achievements. This is exactly what I've been arguing against all along, as you might know if you read people's posts in longer chunks instead of sentence by sentence.
ALL of what you have, so called, been "arguing" against can simply be countered by the very fact that it is mostly the children who thanks, or credits, their parents, for 'being there for them', when they are standing on the podium accepting their awards or achievements.
OBVIOUSLY, children will ONLY credit their parents, when they have been worthy of crediting.
Children will ONLY thank their parents, when they have been Truly thank-full.