LDS and punishment

[Pahoran]

I'm not talking about parents or parenting; I assumed you used parenting as an analogue, I chose to use the spirit of your analogy without referring to parenting.

By the way, I do feel that parents who create artificial consequences misunderstand the concept of consequences.

Well there you are, you see. I feel that parents who fail to create artificial consequences misunderstand the concept of being a parent, and are failing their children completely.

Parents have a responsibility to teach their children that their choices have consequences. The most effective way to do that is to set rules and affix punishments to those rules. The harshest punishment a loving parent will impose will be vastly less than the "natural" or "legal" consequences that attach to rule-breaking in wider society. Grounding a child, confiscating an MP4 or iPhone, restricting privileges in various ways are approaches that, when applied consistently, all teach a child that their choices entail actual consquences, and help to develop the habits of thinking about the consquences that flow from their choices.

A parent who, too weak to impose "artificial consequences," lets a child burn all the skin off their hands by leaning on the hot stove, or be run over because they run thoughtlessly onto the road, or get a girlfriend pregnant, or get arrested for stealing a car, has let their child down completely. The natural consquences of that parent's failure are vastly more disadvantageous to their child than all the "artificial consequences" a better parent could ever come up with.

But that's just my opinion.

As for Mr Davies: he knew what the Honor Code entailed when he signed up. He knew the consequences for breaking it. He chose to break it. The consequences therefore flow from his own choice.

I hope he is able to re-qualify to return.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Well there you are, you see. I feel that parents who fail to create artificial consequences misunderstand the concept of being a parent, and are failing their children completely.

Parents have a responsibility to teach their children that their choices have consequences. The most effective way to do that is to set rules and affix punishments to those rules. The harshest punishment a loving parent will impose will be vastly less than the "natural" or "legal" consequences that attach to rule-breaking in wider society. Grounding a child, confiscating an MP4 or iPhone, restricting privileges in various ways are approaches that, when applied consistently, all teach a child that their choices entail actual consquences, and help to develop the habits of thinking about the consquences that flow from their choices.

A parent who, too weak to impose "artificial consequences," lets a child burn all the skin off their hands by leaning on the hot stove, or be run over because they run thoughtlessly onto the road, or get a girlfriend pregnant, or get arrested for stealing a car, has let their child down completely. The natural consquences of that parent's failure are vastly more disadvantageous to their child than all the "artificial consequences" a better parent could ever come up with.

If a consequence doesn't logically follow as a result of an action, then it is artificial. For instance, if my son goes to bed without taking out the trash, confiscating an iPod is not a natural consequence, but waking him up before I go to bed and asking him take out the garbage is a natural consequence. In other words, the outcome is related to the action.

There is always a natural consequence. If one of my kids decide to give me a hard time when I ask them to do something, I don't take away a phone or ground them. Rather, the very next time they need me to do something, like drive them somewhere or give them money, I refuse to do it, and I point out that respect is not only for times when it is convenient.

Trust me, they learn quickly.

As such, while we may have differing opinions regarding the BYU honour code, I maintain that the honour code artificially links some actions to consequences that don't logically follow from the action.

H.

[Pahoran]

I wonder why some are so insistent we be like the other schools?

Because they think it enhances diversity.

Regards,

Pahoran