You have created this scenario in your own head, and either persuaded yourself it is true, or are trying to pass yourself off as having persuaded yourself it is true. Either way, it is a scenario that exists only inside your head, and I have no intention of entering into debate about your mental construct.
But IF Michelangelo had created a statue greater than either the David OR the Pieta, what would it look like?
And you've done the same. The theory of the story you have in your head is taken from the mother and father who were - not passengers on the plane - but rather people who were kicked off the plane because they apparently put themselves in danger or worse put others in danger. Why you are so eager to take the side of the people who refused to comply with the saftey rules of the pilot, I really can't say.
Also, how does the 8yo in the video linked above ever retrieve the coping skills most children normally acquire in the day to day? IMO the extended breastfeeders in the video will have to go through some intensive therapy someday with their mothers. Can you imagine the harm done to children so much so that the children must go through therapy? Thankfully, I have no experience with putting my children in therapy. But that is what I was getting across above. The "ick" factor can lead to problems later in life, including therapy for the children, so why do the mothers in the video risk it?
And I don't think you truly "wean" a child who's been nursing for years. The child is so used to extended bf'ing by age 3 or older that I'm sure it's a knock-down drag-out fight to stop the 3 yo or older age child from breastfeeding. How can anyone put a child through that? At least at or before age 1, weaning is much easier and comes much more naturally as the child welcomes cups and new and fun foods into his diet. At age 1, they more easily take to the cup. So it's just downright unthinking and not looking into the future to push extended bf'ing on the older child year after year.
I feel for these kids as obviously many will have to go through therapy.
I haven't seen the video so can't comment on the individual case. I have said that the whole idea raises red flags in my head, the same red flags that would go up with any situation where a child is severely delayed in achieving a milestone -- in this case, weaning. While toddler/preschool nursing is common worldwide, even in the least developed civilizations, nursing beyond the age of five or six seems to be pretty rare. So my question about an eight year old nursing would be something to the effect of "what's going on here, and why, and what other unusual delays, if any, are present in the life of this child?"
As to what I think about the airplane ejection story, I haven't given my opinion on it, so I believe that any speculation on your part about what I have in my head is, well, just that, speculation. But I refuse to couch my speculation in your terms: That is, you are still going on about "putting themselves and others in danger" and "refusing to comply with safety rules" with no evidence whatsoever to back up your scenario. All we have here is that the woman was requested to put a blanket over herself and the child and refused. I fail to see how the blanket could be construed as a security device.
Pages
You have created this scenario in your own head, and either persuaded yourself it is true, or are trying to pass yourself off as having persuaded yourself it is true. Either way, it is a scenario that exists only inside your head, and I have no intention of entering into debate about your mental construct.
But IF Michelangelo had created a statue greater than either the David OR the Pieta, what would it look like?
Edited 4/4/2007 9:31 am ET by matoeric
And you've done the same. The theory of the story you have in your head is taken from the mother and father who were - not passengers on the plane - but rather people who were kicked off the plane because they apparently put themselves in danger or worse put others in danger. Why you are so eager to take the side of the people who refused to comply with the saftey rules of the pilot, I really can't say.
Also, how does the 8yo in the video linked above ever retrieve the coping skills most children normally acquire in the day to day? IMO the extended breastfeeders in the video will have to go through some intensive therapy someday with their mothers. Can you imagine the harm done to children so much so that the children must go through therapy? Thankfully, I have no experience with putting my children in therapy. But that is what I was getting across above. The "ick" factor can lead to problems later in life, including therapy for the children, so why do the mothers in the video risk it?
<
And I don't think you truly "wean" a child who's been nursing for years. The child is so used to extended bf'ing by age 3 or older that I'm sure it's a knock-down drag-out fight to stop the 3 yo or older age child from breastfeeding. How can anyone put a child through that? At least at or before age 1, weaning is much easier and comes much more naturally as the child welcomes cups and new and fun foods into his diet. At age 1, they more easily take to the cup. So it's just downright unthinking and not looking into the future to push extended bf'ing on the older child year after year.
I feel for these kids as obviously many will have to go through therapy.
I haven't seen the video so can't comment on the individual case. I have said that the whole idea raises red flags in my head, the same red flags that would go up with any situation where a child is severely delayed in achieving a milestone -- in this case, weaning. While toddler/preschool nursing is common worldwide, even in the least developed civilizations, nursing beyond the age of five or six seems to be pretty rare. So my question about an eight year old nursing would be something to the effect of "what's going on here, and why, and what other unusual delays, if any, are present in the life of this child?"
As to what I think about the airplane ejection story, I haven't given my opinion on it, so I believe that any speculation on your part about what I have in my head is, well, just that, speculation. But I refuse to couch my speculation in your terms: That is, you are still going on about "putting themselves and others in danger" and "refusing to comply with safety rules" with no evidence whatsoever to back up your scenario. All we have here is that the woman was requested to put a blanket over herself and the child and refused. I fail to see how the blanket could be construed as a security device.
Pages