Child Control

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
which is why you don't take him to the mall. the link posted by palynka shows just a means of keeping children together in one place, they are being supervised by adults who cannot possible watch over so many without it. furthermore, in a crowded mall if a child can tank free if you hold his hand, why shouldn't he yank free if you hold his leash. and if he s development. i don't even agree with parents making their children go to boarding school.

Do you have children, or have you ever had to look after children before?
Some parents don't have the luxury, yes correct: LUXURY, of being able to leave their children at home in order to do errands, some parents simply don't want to leave their children alone when they could be with them.

You are assuming that this harness would be a torture device, a principal and irreplaceable item used for instilling fear and pain in the little hearts of boys and girls.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
which is why you don't take him to the mall. the link posted by palynka shows just a means of keeping children together in one place, they are being supervised by adults who cannot possible watch over so many without it. furthermore, in a crowded mall if a child can tank free if you hold his hand, why shouldn't he yank free if you hold his leash. and if he ...[text shortened]... s development. i don't even agree with parents making their children go to boarding school.

But isn't child-proofing your home restricting the kids' freedom?

If your kid wants to play with the knives, electric mains or the lawnmower, aren't you 'restricting their freedom' to prevent this?

Some kids, at certain stages in their lives, need restraints, to prevent them toddling off. This isn't abuse, or 'restricting their freedom', any more than the requirement to stop at a red traffic light restricts an adult's freedom.

Originally posted by Natsia
Do you have children, or have you ever had to look after children before?
Some parents don't have the luxury, yes correct: LUXURY, of being able to leave their children at home in order to do errands, some parents simply don't want to leave their children alone when they could be with them.

You are assuming that this harness would be a torture device, a ...[text shortened]... d irreplaceable item used for instilling fear and pain in the little hearts of boys and girls.

no i don't have children because i am unable to care for them without putting them on a leash. if you don't have the luxury to care for your children, then don't reproduce. and what is this "i can't leave the kids at home to do errands". parents cannot supervize their children every time. what do you suggest, shackles for children every time the mother takes a bath? how about when the mother is cooking and the child plays in the yard, tie him to a pole? or what happened to jimmy, walking home and getting kidnapped, should the parents have leashed him and took him home this way, humiliating him in front of his classmates.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no i don't have children because i am unable to care for them without putting them on a leash. if you don't have the luxury to care for your children, then don't reproduce. and what is this "i can't leave the kids at home to do errands". parents cannot supervize their children every time. what do you suggest, shackles for children every time the mother take ...[text shortened]... s have leashed him and took him home this way, humiliating him in front of his classmates.

No... I was suggesting a "leash" 😛

Originally posted by Redmike
But isn't child-proofing your home restricting the kids' freedom?

If your kid wants to play with the knives, electric mains or the lawnmower, aren't you 'restricting their freedom' to prevent this?

Some kids, at certain stages in their lives, need restraints, to prevent them toddling off. This isn't abuse, or 'restricting their freedom', any more than the requirement to stop at a red traffic light restricts an adult's freedom.

that argument is the same as "banning heroine is restricting our freedom" do make a difference
there is one thing to child proof the house, to remove certain dangers from his path while allowing him to wander for himself and another to keep him locked in a cage so he doesn't hurt himself. toddlers and very small children you put them in harnesses and carry them because they cannot walk for themselves. but from 3 years on the child begins to understand the world and if he is carried around like a dog he will quite possibly never develop beyond the intelligence of a dog.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
which is why you don't take him to the mall. the link posted by palynka shows just a means of keeping children together in one place, they are being supervised by adults who cannot possible watch over so many without it. furthermore, in a crowded mall if a child can tank free if you hold his hand, why shouldn't he yank free if you hold his leash. and if he ...[text shortened]... s development. i don't even agree with parents making their children go to boarding school.

I take my kid everywhere with me - I enjoy showing him the world as it is and the wonderment that is around us. He has seen the inside of our little house already.... Children might yank free, be it hand or leash, but at least I'll be well aware of what's going on. It's not a matter of keeping him in one place, its more of ensuring that I'm in touch with him in a busy, crowded environment. My kid has boundless natural energy (he's a 3 year kid!!) and has little or no sweets because it just sends him over the top. I haven't tried tying him up at home yet but an interesting idea, thank you... What exactly are the results of restricting a child's freedom?

Originally posted by Natsia
No... I was suggesting a "leash" 😛

ohg yeah, forgive me, tethering a child is much better. maybe put a bowl of cereals in front of him so he could eat.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
ohg yeah, forgive me, tethering a child is much better. maybe put a bowl of cereals in front of him so he could eat.

This seems to be a bit of an emotional response??

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
but from 3 years on the child begins to understand the world and if he is carried around like a dog he will quite possibly never develop beyond the intelligence of a dog.

This is absolutely the most laughable argument I've heard!
You're honestly suggestion that MILLIONS of years of (big word now, can you say it with the rest of the class?) evolution (pr. ev-Oh-looo-shun) would be undermined in three years simply from being taken on outings with a harness?!!?!oneoneone!

Please, Dr. Pavlov, elaborate your theory!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that argument is the same as "banning heroine is restricting our freedom" do make a difference
there is one thing to child proof the house, to remove certain dangers from his path while allowing him to wander for himself and another to keep him locked in a cage so he doesn't hurt himself. toddlers and very small children you put them in harnesses and carry ...[text shortened]... ried around like a dog he will quite possibly never develop beyond the intelligence of a dog.

Firstly, NOW you add the cut-off at 3 years.

So, in your world, under-3s can be 'leashed', but over-3's can't?

That is a whole, different, arguement.

Nobody is arguing for locking children in cages. Nobody is arguing for keeping 5-year-olds on a leash.


Perhaps you'd get on better if you addressed what people were actually posting....

Originally posted by BluePointer
I take my kid everywhere with me - I enjoy showing him the world as it is and the wonderment that is around us. He has seen the inside of our little house already.... Children might yank free, be it hand or leash, but at least I'll be well aware of what's going on. It's not a matter of keeping him in one place, its more of ensuring that I'm in touch with ...[text shortened]... resting idea, thank you... What exactly are the results of restricting a child's freedom?

well, to the extreme, some psychos locked their daughter in a basement "so she doesn't get hurt" for several years. that girl was never able to correctly speak again. she could say nouns and verbs in the present simple but not tie them in a sentence and that only after years of having a social worker caring for her after she was taken from her parents. mental development severely reduced. sure this is an extreme case. sure, the parents not only tied her up but also forgot to untie her or give her love and attention.
that is what happened when no love and attention is given and you tie a child up.

now try and imagine what happens if you do the same to your child for short amounts of time. maybe it would do nothing. maybe it will do some damage. the point i am trying to make is that every parent should think whether a few moments of ease of mind are worth the risk of your child being hurt from being tied like a dog. and of course one would wonder that if this practice were to be ever common, where would it stop. at what age. if the child is restless, would you have him leashed until 10, 12?

i don't know the joy of being a parent. what i do know is that besides that there is endless worry.
i for one would not reduce that worry at the risk of demeaning my child or possibly even hurt him. i would rather keep my eyes on him constantly than walking carefree and pulling the leash once in a while

Originally posted by BluePointer
This seems to be a bit of an emotional response??

i simply find the idea that repulsing.

one of the most shameful moments of my countries history(perhaps the most) was when a couple of journalists discovered an orphanage with mentally retarded children tied to their beds, starving. the image was shocking to say the least. makes you ashame of being a human.

and now the dude that created this thread say it is ok to tie children up as long as you do it with a pretty leash. and take them for a walk.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well, to the extreme, some psychos locked their daughter in a basement "so she doesn't get hurt" for several years. that girl was never able to correctly speak again. she could say nouns and verbs in the present simple but not tie them in a sentence and that only after years of having a social worker caring for her after she was taken from her parents. ment ...[text shortened]... r keep my eyes on him constantly than walking carefree and pulling the leash once in a while

The debate calls for a clear and reasonable mind to be applied to the argument.... Ignoring the extreme situations, what exactly are the horrendous effects of keeping a child close by means of a leash, pram, trolley, string or hand when in a crowded environment?? I would hazard a guess at no ill effect whatsoever? If anyone disagrees, I would be interested why this might be..

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i simply find the idea that repulsing.

one of the most shameful moments of my countries history(perhaps the most) was when a couple of journalists discovered an orphanage with mentally retarded children tied to their beds, starving. the image was shocking to say the least. makes you ashame of being a human.

and now the dude that created this thread s ...[text shortened]... it is ok to tie children up as long as you do it with a pretty leash. and take them for a walk.

You should re-read, the post.
You're the only one here who is seeing it as an opportunity to violently restrain and torture children.

Originally posted by BluePointer
The debate calls for a clear and reasonable mind to be applied to the argument.... Ignoring the extreme situations, what exactly are the horrendous effects of keeping a child close by means of a leash, pram, trolley, string or hand when in a crowded environment?? I would hazard a guess at no ill effect whatsoever? If anyone disagrees, I would be interested why this might be..

well if you are talking about a very young child, it is irresponsibly to make him walk in a crowded environment because he might possibly get stepped on. if you put him on a leash, he might even wander a bit far and risk more to get stepped on.

also i don't know what age are you deciding the harness isn't necessary anymore. because if you find it acceptable to leash a 3 year old maybe you would a 7 year old too. or maybe a 10 year old. i would have been embarrassed if my parents came for me to school. i shudder to think how i would think if i was walked like a dog in public places.