Stupidest idea of the month...so far

[Animavore]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

You haven't justified why it's "looney", rather than just novel and new. Only to declare by fiat that it is. You haven't even shown the methods don't work.

[Animavore]

Indeed he does.

It is still loony..

The question is, do you get it yet? You were trying to argue it was about the parents.

I have found the level of bickering here of late pretty grindingly tedious so I'll just comment that to my way of thinking the idea here is about creating the conditions where consent is part of the psychological environment. I do however think it is a silly idea - this one in (the nappy changing strategy) particular.

I'm not sure what bickering has to do with this. I agree with you 100%.

Rum said the same thing as me except he thinks it's "looney" off hand. I don't.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure what's going on with you lately, but you need to peruse the order of things. You said this was aimed at the parents. I told you it was aimed at the kids and told you the reason why. Which is exactly what Rum has said now. You categorically never understood that this was about the kids and conditioning them for their future social interactions. You basically just chucked a tantrum because I kept trying to explain this point to you repeatedly.

You really need to do less of the idiotic smilies and do some more actual reading and thinking. You've ballsed this up big time, which would be fine, except you've been a condescending twat. You need to sort your shit out.

[Animavore]

I said the nappy thing was for the parents. The woman in the interview said it was for the parents.

"We work with children from 3 year-old. We work with parents from birth."

Read it and re-read it until you understand it. Then when you think you understand it, read it again to make sure you do.

[pErvinalia]

It's for the (alleged) benefit of the baby (for later in it's life)! FFS. You've been off base this whole thread. Get with the fucking program. You are agreeing with Rum that it is for the benefit of the children, yet you want to still maintain that this is done for the parents. And then you have the fucking temerity act like you've been agreeing with Rum all along, and me pointing out that I am and have always been in 100% agreement with Rum is some sort of improbable revelation to you.

Sort your shit out.

[Animavore]

Read it again. Hint: the second sentence is the relevant part.

I've done all I can to help you now. I've literally handed it to you on a plate. I'm done here.

[pErvinalia]

Animavore, never wrong...

[Animavore]

It's nothing to do with never being wrong. It's to do with reading plain English.

"We work with children from 3 year-old."
Ie. after the baby/nappy stage.

"We work with parents from birth."
Helping to prep parents and create a culture of consent from even before that.

Plain English. No trickery. No adding my own interpretation. Just reading it as is written.

[pErvinalia]

Man, they work with the parents for the benefit of the children! To say "this isn't about the kids", is categorically wrong. It's absolutely about the kids. You can't on the one hand think it's not about the kids, but on the other hand agree with what Rum and I are saying (i.e. it's about the kids).

You said you were done here. You really should move on, as this is just getting embarrassing now. You've arsed this whole thing up totally.

[Animavore]

Lol. Even when English sentences are broken down for you you still can't get it.

I'd ask you again to read what Rum said but that might be too complicated.

[JimC]

So where did the "ask baby for consent when changing nappy" nonsense appear? Was that not part of their program?

[Animavore]

So where did the "ask baby for consent when changing nappy" nonsense appear? Was that not part of their program?

Irrelevant. I've no problem with the idea the program is for adult and kids alike. The nappy part, as is clearly explained, is for the adult, as the consent training doesn't start 'til 3 for kids.

This seems to be where you all are getting caught up. You can't separate a part from the whole. You seem to be trying to reason that if the program is for the children (it's actually for parents and children) then the whole must be.

[Hermit]

So where did the "ask baby for consent when changing nappy" nonsense appear? Was that not part of their program?

Irrelevant. I've no problem with the idea the program is for adult and kids alike. The nappy part, as is clearly explained, is for the adult, as the consent training doesn't start 'til 3 for kids.

This seems to be where you all are getting caught up. You can't separate a part from the whole. You seem to be trying to reason that if the program is for the children (it's actually for parents and children) then the whole must be.

The way I see it, you are right in so far ingraining the habit of obtaining consent before doing something to another person by practice is a good idea. Doing that by asking a baby if it is OK to change its nappy is a sham, though. Every parent knows that the baby is incapable of granting or withholding consent, and even if the baby were capable of doing so, the parent would bloody well go ahead and change the nappy anyway. Deanne Carson is letting the politically correct bandwagon carry her into cloud cuckoo territory. Her proposal just adds ammunition to the anti politically correct brigades.

[Animavore]

So where did the "ask baby for consent when changing nappy" nonsense appear? Was that not part of their program?

Irrelevant. I've no problem with the idea the program is for adult and kids alike. The nappy part, as is clearly explained, is for the adult, as the consent training doesn't start 'til 3 for kids.

This seems to be where you all are getting caught up. You can't separate a part from the whole. You seem to be trying to reason that if the program is for the children (it's actually for parents and children) then the whole must be.

The way I see it, you are right in so far ingraining the habit of obtaining consent before doing something to another person by practice is a good idea. Doing that by asking a baby if it is OK to change its nappy is a sham, though. Every parent knows that the baby is incapable of granting or withholding consent, and even if the baby were capable of doing so, the parent would bloody well go ahead and change the nappy anyway. Deanne Carson is letting the politically correct bandwagon carry her into cloud cuckoo territory. Her proposal just adds ammunition to the anti politically correct brigades.

Except Deanna knows herself that, clearly, a baby can't give consent. She says,

"Yes, just about how to set up a culture of consent in their homes so 'I'm going to change your nappy now, is that OK,' Deanne responded.

"Of course a baby is not going to respond 'yes mum that's awesome, I'd love to have my nappy changed'.

"But if you leave a space, and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact then you're letting that child know that their response matters."

And I'm left, yet again, asking if I'm the only one who read beyond the headline?

[Scot Dutchy]

Ani I know the feeling.