Stupidest idea of the month...so far

[Animavore]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

[JimC]

I have said nothing about her hair, just about the lunacy of asking a baby for permission to change its nappy.

There is a real and important debate about the whole nature of consent which is trivialised by this ridiculous crap.

[Animavore]

That apparent 'lunacy' is addressed.

[Animavore]

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

[Sean Hayden]

One of the neatest things about being a parent for me has been the discovery of just how much each child is their own person. I guess I never realized how surrounded I had been by the idea that kids are essentially what their parents make them. It's so obvious to me now that this can't possibly be true, that I'm not sure how the myth has survived so long.

[pErvinalia]

To me, the key to bringing up kids is simply to spend a lot of time with them, particularly when they are young. Lots of reading of stories, going to the park, bike riding, kicking the footy etc. My wife tutors young kids, and gets to know the families. Often, she tells me that the biggest problems occur with "absentee" dads, so busy earning the big bucks that they have little time to spend with their kids...

Exactly. The problem isn't with hugging without permission, or not asking your fucking illiterate baby if you can change its nappy ( ), it's parents not being loving enough with their kids and instilling the importance of respecting other people (other than conservatives of course) and themselves.

She acknowledged the baby can't understand. It's about forming habits.

Ask yourself; whose daughter is more at risk from sexual assault when they get older? The one who has been taught about consent? Or the one who doesn't understand how it works, taught about subjugation and obedience, in a more traditional home?

Nappies and hugging have very little to do with that. You can be taught about consent (and boys taught about respecting girls). My daughter is 11 and she is very strong willed, despite starting out very shy and submissive. She got strong willed because her mother and I (and the school) have brought her up to be proud of who she is and to assert her herself whenever she sees something wrong.

[Animavore]

To me, the key to bringing up kids is simply to spend a lot of time with them, particularly when they are young. Lots of reading of stories, going to the park, bike riding, kicking the footy etc. My wife tutors young kids, and gets to know the families. Often, she tells me that the biggest problems occur with "absentee" dads, so busy earning the big bucks that they have little time to spend with their kids...

Exactly. The problem isn't with hugging without permission, or not asking your fucking illiterate baby if you can change its nappy ( ), it's parents not being loving enough with their kids and instilling the importance of respecting other people (other than conservatives of course) and themselves.

She acknowledged the baby can't understand. It's about forming habits.

Ask yourself; whose daughter is more at risk from sexual assault when they get older? The one who has been taught about consent? Or the one who doesn't understand how it works, taught about subjugation and obedience, in a more traditional home?

Nappies and hugging have very little to do with that. You can be taught about consent (and boys taught about respecting girls). My daughter is 11 and she is very strong willed, despite starting out very shy and submissive. She got strong willed because her mother and I (and the school) have brought her up to be proud of who she is and to assert her herself whenever she sees something wrong.

It's not for the kids.

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

[pErvinalia]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

It's because she is a loon. The idea that a parent should hold off touching their kid, and that kids shouldn't just hug each other like kids do, is anti-human. It's as if she has no concept of humanity and socialisation. Hugging others doesn't lead to rape. It leads to empathy from sharing fun experiences.

[Animavore]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

It's because she is a loon. The idea that a parent should hold off touching their kid, and that kids shouldn't just hug each other like kids do, is anti-human. It's as if she has no concept of humanity and socialisation. Hugging others doesn't lead to rape. It leads to empathy from sharing fun experiences.

How the fuck did you get all that out of what she said? Talk about a massive misrepresentation.

[pErvinalia]

To me, the key to bringing up kids is simply to spend a lot of time with them, particularly when they are young. Lots of reading of stories, going to the park, bike riding, kicking the footy etc. My wife tutors young kids, and gets to know the families. Often, she tells me that the biggest problems occur with "absentee" dads, so busy earning the big bucks that they have little time to spend with their kids...

Exactly. The problem isn't with hugging without permission, or not asking your fucking illiterate baby if you can change its nappy ( ), it's parents not being loving enough with their kids and instilling the importance of respecting other people (other than conservatives of course) and themselves.

She acknowledged the baby can't understand. It's about forming habits.

Ask yourself; whose daughter is more at risk from sexual assault when they get older? The one who has been taught about consent? Or the one who doesn't understand how it works, taught about subjugation and obedience, in a more traditional home?

Nappies and hugging have very little to do with that. You can be taught about consent (and boys taught about respecting girls). My daughter is 11 and she is very strong willed, despite starting out very shy and submissive. She got strong willed because her mother and I (and the school) have brought her up to be proud of who she is and to assert her herself whenever she sees something wrong.

It's not for the kids.

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

What do you mean "it's not for the kids"? It's specifically for teaching kids about respecting personal sovereignty. I haven't even read the article. I saw a whole interview with her on Australian TV.

[Animavore]

Exactly. The problem isn't with hugging without permission, or not asking your fucking illiterate baby if you can change its nappy ( ), it's parents not being loving enough with their kids and instilling the importance of respecting other people (other than conservatives of course) and themselves.

She acknowledged the baby can't understand. It's about forming habits.

Ask yourself; whose daughter is more at risk from sexual assault when they get older? The one who has been taught about consent? Or the one who doesn't understand how it works, taught about subjugation and obedience, in a more traditional home?

Nappies and hugging have very little to do with that. You can be taught about consent (and boys taught about respecting girls). My daughter is 11 and she is very strong willed, despite starting out very shy and submissive. She got strong willed because her mother and I (and the school) have brought her up to be proud of who she is and to assert her herself whenever she sees something wrong.

It's not for the kids.

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

What do you mean "it's not for the kids"? It's specifically for teaching kids about respecting personal sovereignty. I haven't even read the article. I saw a whole interview with her on Australian TV.

The quote directly says this is about getting parents used to the idea of consent beginning from birth.

Misrepresentation all the way down.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

It's because she is a loon. The idea that a parent should hold off touching their kid, and that kids shouldn't just hug each other like kids do, is anti-human. It's as if she has no concept of humanity and socialisation. Hugging others doesn't lead to rape. It leads to empathy from sharing fun experiences.

How the fuck did you get all that out of what she said? Talk about a massive misrepresentation.

It's not misrepresentation as I'm not representing anything she said. I'm giving you my opinion of why it's wrong to stifle normal human interactions. The reason this stuff is done is in large part to reduce sexual assault in later life. Hence the rape comment.

[Animavore]

It's not a big deal.

I'm just laughing at how uppity and offended you're all getting. Even the woman's hair offends you. You're all just hand-waving her off as a loon, without being able to explain why. The most youse can do is scoff at the idea of talking to an illiterate baby; as if people don't talk to their babies all the time.

It's because she is a loon. The idea that a parent should hold off touching their kid, and that kids shouldn't just hug each other like kids do, is anti-human. It's as if she has no concept of humanity and socialisation. Hugging others doesn't lead to rape. It leads to empathy from sharing fun experiences.

How the fuck did you get all that out of what she said? Talk about a massive misrepresentation.

It's not misrepresentation as I'm not representing anything she said. I'm giving you my opinion of why it's wrong to stifle normal human interactions. The reason this stuff is done is in large part to reduce sexual assault in later life. Hence the rape comment.

No where is hugging mentioned. What the absolute fuck?!

[pErvinalia]

Nappies and hugging have very little to do with that. You can be taught about consent (and boys taught about respecting girls). My daughter is 11 and she is very strong willed, despite starting out very shy and submissive. She got strong willed because her mother and I (and the school) have brought her up to be proud of who she is and to assert her herself whenever she sees something wrong.

It's not for the kids.

The relevant quote, "We work with children [on consent] from 3 years-old. We work with parents from birth."

Am I the only one who read past The Mirror's headline?

What do you mean "it's not for the kids"? It's specifically for teaching kids about respecting personal sovereignty. I haven't even read the article. I saw a whole interview with her on Australian TV.

The quote directly says this is about getting parents used to the idea of consent beginning from birth.

Misrepresentation all the way down.

You are making no sense. It's about teaching the kids about consent. I.e. when you say "it's not for the kids", it's specifically for the kids.

[pErvinalia]

It's because she is a loon. The idea that a parent should hold off touching their kid, and that kids shouldn't just hug each other like kids do, is anti-human. It's as if she has no concept of humanity and socialisation. Hugging others doesn't lead to rape. It leads to empathy from sharing fun experiences.

How the fuck did you get all that out of what she said? Talk about a massive misrepresentation.

It's not misrepresentation as I'm not representing anything she said. I'm giving you my opinion of why it's wrong to stifle normal human interactions. The reason this stuff is done is in large part to reduce sexual assault in later life. Hence the rape comment.

No where is hugging mentioned. What the absolute fuck?!

The actual fuck is that hugging is part of the program. Perhaps you need to read a bit wider. That's the actual fuck.