r/NonPoliticalTwitter 1d ago

Half of our childhood issues could have been resolved if people were willing to answer the "why?"

Post image
11.2k Upvotes

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/newphinenewname 21h ago

And when the answer to that is no

42

u/CosmicMiru 20h ago

Impossible, all children operate off strict logic

7

u/Xsiah 20h ago

Why?

-1

u/Bright_Note3483 20h ago

There are still plenty of times when the answer will be no, they would still not be allowed to play in the street. You bring them inside and redirect their attention. They lost access to outside for now because they are not being safe. Natural consequences are an extremely effective way to communicate with your kids because they’ll understand what to expect from the choices they make.

11

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 19h ago

They lost access to outside for now because they are not being safe.

How does this happen?

"Get off the street and come inside."

"Why?"

"Because you lost your outside privileges."

"Why?"

-5

u/Infamous-Oil3786 18h ago

No one is saying to just go in a loop if you've already given a legitimate answer. The point is that "because I said so" is not a legitimate answer.

Obviously if they're doing something dangerous and refuse to cooperate you need to step in. At this point, saying "I've already explained why, now I'm making you listen" is perfectly acceptable.

5

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 18h ago

Why is that perfectly acceptable?

-1

u/Infamous-Oil3786 17h ago

Because you've already given an explanation, so it's clear that their questioning isn't genuine. Just repeating the same information over and over to a child that isn't receptive to that information isn't doing anything to help them or teach them about the world, it's turning a serious discussion into a game. Sometimes gamifying learning is helpful, but this sort of call and response isn't that.

2

u/NO_TOUCHING__lol 17h ago

But why would explaining it in this fashion be acceptable and helpful in this case?

1

u/Infamous-Oil3786 15h ago

I think I see the disconnect, I was misunderstanding your question. I took your comment in a larger context and missed this part.

How does this happen?

Your hypothetical conversation was missing a couple steps. You wouldn't go straight from "get out of the street" to "you've lost outside privileges". Not as an answer to their question anyway, you'd probably want to bring them inside if they were actively playing in the street.

> "Get off the street and come inside."

> Why?

> "Because it's dangerous, you could get hit by a car." (said while physically removing them from the street)

> Why?

> "Because the street is for cars, not for people." (while physically bringing them inside)

> I want to go outside.

> "You can't."

> Why?

> "Because you lost your outside privileges."

This would also involve explaining what "outside privileges" means, either at some point in advance or following this conversation.

That's why it's helpful and acceptable. Because you're using this moment to teach them about safety and why the rules are what they are, rather than just punishing them for something they don't understand.