Teach Your Children Well

[Age]

Age, I still don't see your answer to the question.

If you don't have one, that's okay. Give it some thought.

Look to the principle, not the specifics.

Women who did not have abortions, did not have to have an abortion.

And, for those so-called "women" who did have abortions some of did have abortions because they 'had' to, while for others they had abortions because they just 'chose' to.

Is there some actual point, or principle, that you want to get to here, or expose?

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

[Walker]

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

Your answer to the question is the departure point for discussion, but first you have to answer the question.

[Age]

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

Your answer to the question is the departure point for discussion, but first you have to answer the question.

But, there are no, actual, 'answers' to nonsensical questions.

There are, however, 'responses', which I have, already, supplied, and provided.

Or, maybe, you are wanting and waiting for 'me' to provide 'an answer' to 'the question', 'Why do some "women" 'have to' have abortions?'

If you are, then 'one answer' out of way too many answers that could be provided, here, now, is because they 'choose' to keep 'their life' over a yet "unborn human being's life', which may or may not have even existed anyway.

Is 'this' what you are wanting and/or waiting for, from me, here?

[Walker]

If yes, then what is 'it', exactly?

Your answer to the question is the departure point for discussion, but first you have to answer the question.

But, there are no, actual, 'answers' to nonsensical questions.

There are, however, 'responses', which I have, already, supplied, and provided.

Then we have no basis for discussion, which should end your replies.
Sometimes that happens ... no problemo.

Give it some time though, and you may think of an answer.
Perhaps after a good night's sleep, when you're feeling fresh and frisky.

[Walker]

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

Well, telling a small kid what is right and wrong, when they obviously don't display knowing the distinction, for whatever reason, forms the basis for their judgements in later life, after they start to question this or that.

"What you did is bad. When you do bad things, you make Mommy cry."
(Both turn to look at Mommy. Yep, Mommy is crying, the kid kinda knows it's a bit of foolery, but Mommy is a good actress and it has an effect. Later on, this expands into a more adult dialogue with Mommy and Daddy asking and answering situational questions, for the child to hear the various answers and avenues of thought, all directed towards impartial persuasion that encourages the child's own judgement. The two approaches communicate via the child's capacity to absorb what's important in each of the interactions.)

[Age]

Your answer to the question is the departure point for discussion, but first you have to answer the question.

But, there are no, actual, 'answers' to nonsensical questions.

There are, however, 'responses', which I have, already, supplied, and provided.

Then we have no basis for discussion, which should end your replies.
Sometimes that happens ... no problemo.

Give it some time though, and you may think of an answer.
Perhaps after a good night's sleep, when you're feeling fresh and frisky.

I provided an answer while you were writing this. Maybe you missed it.

[Age]

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

Well, telling a small kid what is right and wrong, when they obviously don't display knowing the distinction, for whatever reason, forms the basis for their judgements in later life, after they start to question this or that.

"What you did is bad. When you do bad things, you make Mommy cry."
(Both turn to look at Mommy. Yep, Mommy is crying, the kid kinda knows it's a bit of foolery, but Mommy is a good actress and it has an effect. Later on, this expands into a more adult dialogue with Mommy and Daddy asking and answering situational questions, for the child to hear the various answers and avenues of thought, all directed towards impartial persuasion that encourages the child's own judgement. The two approaches communicate via the child's capacity to absorb what's important in each of the interactions.)

All happening while the adults, "themselves", cannot just say and write, 'what is actually Right, and Wrong, in Life', while being in agreement and acceptance with and of each other.

[Walker]

I provided an answer while you were writing this. Maybe you missed it.

Hmmm. Maybe you will hear this.

I have one condition that you must meet, for us to discuss this thread.

You must answer the question I asked. You know what the question is. You are studiously avoiding the answer.

However, before we can take another step forward in this thread, you and I, you must answer the question.

That is an absolute you cannot distract.

Why?

Because I say so.

[Age]

I provided an answer while you were writing this. Maybe you missed it.

Hmmm. Maybe you will hear this.

I have one condition that you must meet, for us to discuss this thread.

You must answer the question I asked. You know what the question is. You are studiously avoiding the answer.

However, before we can take another step forward in this thread, you and I, you must answer the question.

That is an absolute you cannot distract.

Why?

Because I say so.

But, I did answer it, and then asked you for clarification. Did you miss it?

If yes, then, here, I will write and repeat it for you, again, 'in bold'. And, 'your clarification' at the end will keep things moving forward here. That is; if 'that' is what you really want here.

Or, maybe, you are wanting and waiting for 'me' to provide 'an answer' to 'the question', 'Why do some "women" 'have to' have abortions?'

If you are, then 'one answer' out of way too many answers that could be provided, here, now, is because they 'choose' to keep 'their life' over a yet "unborn human being's life', which may or may not have even existed anyway.

Is 'this' what you are wanting and/or waiting for, from me, here?

[Walker]

And the question is ... (drum roll)

Why do women have to have abortions?

[Age]

And the question is ... (drum roll)

Why do women have to have abortions?

But, I went through 'this' with you, already.

"women" do not have to have abortions.

Though, some "women" 'choose' to have abortions, for varying reasons.

Also, if you are 'trying to' get some answer about, 'because only "women" can get pregnant', then 'this' is getting even more nonsensical. But, I might be way off here, anyway, I have, already, provided you with 'an answer'. And, if that is not 'the answer' that you want, or might think or believe is the 'only answer' possible, then 'I' cannot help 'you' here.

So, 'you' will have to either find 'someone else', or just provide 'the answer' that you think or believe is 'the right answer', and then inform 'us', readers, here what 'it' is, exactly, that you are wanting to 'get at' here. Otherwise, you are your complete lonesome here.

[bahman]

Louisiana Becomes First State to Require Ten Commandments to Be Displayed in Public School Classrooms
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024 ... lassrooms/

Critics will see this as forcing a particular religion, or any religion, upon the little children, however the link provides the rebuttal to that reasoning.

Critics will see this as forcing religion upon the little children, however, the rationale for displaying Ten Commandments is morality, not religion. Not all morality is equal. For instance, a different morality displayed in an educational setting might list reasons why the children should be little terrorists.

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

How does one 'improve' the 'sense of judgement', 'in another', when the one, itself, does not even have a perfect sense of judgement?

And, to 'know', and show, if one does have a perfect sense of judgement, or not, then they would be able to explain what they 'base' thier judgements on, exactly?

So, wht do you base 'your judgements' on, exactly, "bahman"?

We can improve their sense of judgment by explaining the consequences of their decision rather than saying this is wrong or right.

[bahman]

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

Well, telling a small kid what is right and wrong, when they obviously don't display knowing the distinction, for whatever reason, forms the basis for their judgements in later life, after they start to question this or that.

"What you did is bad. When you do bad things, you make Mommy cry."
(Both turn to look at Mommy. Yep, Mommy is crying, the kid kinda knows it's a bit of foolery, but Mommy is a good actress and it has an effect. Later on, this expands into a more adult dialogue with Mommy and Daddy asking and answering situational questions, for the child to hear the various answers and avenues of thought, all directed towards impartial persuasion that encourages the child's own judgement. The two approaches communicate via the child's capacity to absorb what's important in each of the interactions.)

Well, I think it is important to explain to the children the consequences of their decisions and actions rather than saying what is wrong or right.

[Age]

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

How does one 'improve' the 'sense of judgement', 'in another', when the one, itself, does not even have a perfect sense of judgement?

And, to 'know', and show, if one does have a perfect sense of judgement, or not, then they would be able to explain what they 'base' thier judgements on, exactly?

So, wht do you base 'your judgements' on, exactly, "bahman"?

We can improve their sense of judgment by explaining the consequences of their decision rather than saying this is wrong or right.

So, once again, 'we' are 'back' to adult human beings putting 'blame' onto children, and/or 'punishing/discipling' children, for, supposedly, doing 'wrong', when the adults, "themselves", cannot even tell 'us' what is actually Right and Wrong, in Life, anyway.

There is no wonder why it took human beings so long, back then, to evolve, 'grow', and 'mature' healthy and wise.

[Age]

We should improve their sense of judgment rather than only tell them what is right or wrong. Good or evil is situational!

Well, telling a small kid what is right and wrong, when they obviously don't display knowing the distinction, for whatever reason, forms the basis for their judgements in later life, after they start to question this or that.

"What you did is bad. When you do bad things, you make Mommy cry."
(Both turn to look at Mommy. Yep, Mommy is crying, the kid kinda knows it's a bit of foolery, but Mommy is a good actress and it has an effect. Later on, this expands into a more adult dialogue with Mommy and Daddy asking and answering situational questions, for the child to hear the various answers and avenues of thought, all directed towards impartial persuasion that encourages the child's own judgement. The two approaches communicate via the child's capacity to absorb what's important in each of the interactions.)

Well, I think it is important to explain to the children the consequences of their decisions and actions rather than saying what is wrong or right.

Have you thought about telling "your" own 'self' the consequences of your own decisions and miss/behaviors?

Also, why single out 'their' decisions and so-called 'actions'?

Why not instead just explain 'the consequences' of 'decisions', 'actions', and 'mis/behaviour', themselves, alone?

If you think or believe you have the True and Right proper Correct knowledge here, then will you inform 'us' if some examples that you think is important to explain to children?

If no, then why not?