EXPRESSING LOVE TO CHILDREN

I have no reason to take a tediously long post

which just indicates more clearly that you don't understand the concepts
in operation here to be a compliment.

I won't continue to point out to you that you don't get and why you don't
get it because it is all too apparent that you are only interested in argumentation.
I'll just put it as succinctly as possible, and have done with it.

Giving things to children does not constitute an expression of love.

Giving things to someone for such an arbitrary reason as that one alleges
that someone to be "the prettiest" is a bad idea with children because it
will give them unreal expectations of life and society.

Giving children candy or money (which will more than likely be spent on
candy or other forms of refined sugar) feeds a drug habit and leaves
the parents to deal with the consequences. I consider your claim that this
is an expression of love for children to be about as far from reality as it is
possible to get without actually having a morbid pathological problem.

The word "thay" does not exist in English,
so using such a dull-witted substitute does not
create confusion about the meaning of a word.

But to apply your standard to other such words,
how would you propose that someone distinguish between pray and prey,
if it were not immediately apparent from context?

Your idiosyncratic spellings generally suffer from a lack of consistently coherent application.

As for preening your ego with the belief that i am jealous of you in anything, don't kid yourself.

I happen to have scored sufficiently well on the Stanford-Binet "IQ" test to qualify for Mensa--but i'm not a joiner. The only time i joined anything was when i joined the army, and although i don't regret the experience, i would not have done so knowing what i now know. I am unimpressed by the concept of "IQ" testing as a measure of intelligence. Alfred Binet himself cautioned people not take his test as a literal measure of intelligence--and it had been designed to find those with learning disabilities quickly without the use of individual interview and case studies. Binet never intended it to be a serious measure of intelligence, and he personally believed that intelligence could not be determined by testing. More than anything else, it tested enculturation, and the extent to which a student had imbibed the scholastic culture to which they had been committed.

For me to be jealous of you, i would have to envy something about you. Make no mistake: there is nothing about you that i admire, and nothing about you which i would wish to emulate.

There is also something else:
upon the basis of reports from people who have returned from death,
I accept the concept that at the end of incarnate life, during a life review experience,
one experiences the emotions that one has inflicted upon others;
i.e., in that sense, what goes around comes around.

Quote:

There is also something else:
upon the basis of reports from people who have returned from death,
I accept the concept that at the end of incarnate life, during a life review experience,
one experiences the emotions that one has inflicted upon others;
i.e., in that sense, what goes around comes around.

'

Is this about karma?

Uh.....

You're doing it wrong.

Now u [sic] can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.

Dave, I know I'm wasting breath, but...

The best way to love a child is to listen with your heart
to how they think and feel, and to encourage their spirit and dreams.

Cash is not part of the essential equation.

adding free money
to your recommended procedure results in greater happiness
than does the withholding thereof.

Chopping up my post to answer it piece meal is a dishonest way to reply.

I did not take it as a complement that you wrote a tediously long post
which simply indicated more clearly that you don't understand the concepts in operation.

There is little use in continuing to point out to you
that acquiring material objects provides only a transitory "joy" to a child,

and does not constitute an expression of love, and does not benefit children
in the same way that a genuine expression of love will do.

People who don't particularly like a child will still give them a gift on
occasions when it is socially deemed appropriate--so merely giving a gift
will not necessarily be an expression of love.

Conversely, people who genuinely do love children might give them gifts,
such as savings bonds to help pay for their education in the future,
or clothing which they will immediately need,
which will not give the child a sense of joy--

and yet those will be genuine demonstrations of love.
Your thesis is unfounded and unproven.

It matters little if it is a child or an adult to whom you "award" your prize

based on a superficiality.

It is still superficial, and encourages a reliance upon a fleeting circumstance
which is not the product of any useful skill which the individual
has acquired or can develop.

It is still true that this is a slap in the face of anyone (such as an equally
skilled or even more skillful waitress) who doesn't happen to meet you
idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of "pretty."

That's two counts

against the likelihood of you ever acquiring wisdom,
given that you demonstrate so little understanding of love and its expression,

and that you persist in priding yourself on an over-valuation
of superficiality.

The point about candy or money to children
is that a efined sugar product (candy) is a drug of choice for children,

and the consequences of which are grief for the child

and others who have to deal with the child,
including the child's parents--

while you go smugly on your way congratulating yourself on your altruism.

You really don't get this point, and this:

Quote:

Now u [sic] can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.

. . . is evidence of how out of touch you are with reality.

There is a valid distinction to be made between freedom and license,
and whether or not that is true, the fact that someone disagrees with you
has no relevance to a notion of freedom. That someone considers you
clueless about children and love doesn't mean that that someone "hates
freedom," a constant sing-song chant of deluded rightwingnuts whenever
anyone disagrees with them for any reason. It also makes me suspect
once again that you may be lying when you say you are a member
of Mensa--that sort of non-reasoning response shows no intelligence.

You say you think you hit a nerve, but that is just one more instance
of you preening your ego. All in all, i don't know why you bother to post
anything here, given that you obviously don't accept (and probably often
don't understand) the criticisms others make of what you write. It
appears that your only object is to inform us all of the excellence of your
understanding (as you delude yourself that the case is).

Your posts evince a belief that NO joy at all is preferable to transitory joy.

Dave, I don't have time to get in a long discussion, so
this may sound a little harsh...

It comes down to effort.

The arbitrary distribution of assets
without the necessary effort involved
to determine maximum positive effect,
is not terribly effective, whether as a Government philosophy, or a philanthropist's...

I see your strategy as the lazy man's way
of making himself feel better about the inequity of life.

RH

You pick out what you want to respond to,

and don't respond to the totality of the thought.

Giving a child candy is not simply a transitory joy,
it is followed by the negative effects of the drug experience.

While the sugar is still coursing through their veins, children behave in
a manic way, [ ?? ] and this is usually ?? a problem for the parents.

Those parents who don't care have simply dumped the problem on the
other children and adults around them, or, if left alone, simply store up
mental (and possibly physical) trauma for the child's future.

This is why when responsible parents allow their child to have small amounts
of refined sugar, they only do so after the child has eaten a healthy meal, and in supervised circumstances.

Quite apart from that, the consumption of refined sugar products
by a child in a context in which they haven't just eaten a healthy meal
puts them on a metabolic high which is followed by a metabolic crash,

and by depression and often by episodes of petulance and weeping.

This is something which i have pointed out before, although in less detail,
but you continue to ignore that giving children refined sugar products
(candy) randomly and without regard to context is an act of facilitating
a form of drug abuse for the child.

Meanwhile, you go on your merry way, congratulating yourself
on the excellence of your behavior.

But you focus on the issue of transitory joy,

and attempt to suggest that i prefer the notion of no joy to transitory joy.

A child who is given gifts by those whom they know, and whom they love,
and who love them, is afforded a more than transitory joy. A child who
would be given candy or money by a stranger has no continuing benefits
of what you idiotically refer to as an expression of love.

So all of your bullshit about someone arriving at a birthday celebration empty-handed is a strawman--i suggested nothing of the kind. In fact, this statement:

Quote:

Your posts evince a belief that NO joy at all is preferable to transitory joy.

. . . is bullshit, and the biggest strawman, nothing i said remotely resembles that line of crap.

Once again, it is obvious that you really know nothing of the lives of children,

and especially in the context of the task which parents have in raising them and giving them a good home.

Frankly, i believe that you are lying with your little bullshit story about "donee-beneficiaries." I have noticed a tendency when you are losing ground in a discussion for you to bring up some anecdotal evidence from your life's experience, and i have long been convinced that you make it up because you really have no other argument.

In short, whenever you do this, i believe you are lying.
I am not surprised that you inflict yourself on the members of more than one forum. That is not evidence of the any value in what you post. I see little utility in continuing to facilitate your rant--it is certainly not a conversation.

Basically, you mind me of the member Coberst, who spreads his rants all
over the internet. Anyone stumbling into one of your threads is invited to
agree with you or be damned. You have a saving grace that Coberst
does not possess, though. He quickly becomes anxious and angry,
and can't sustain an exchange of views.

You seem able to do it endlessly, although, of course, you never intend to
change your point of view,

or to admit that it may be flawed,

any more than is the case with Coberst.

Have fun in your fantasy world, Bubba [??] .