[ellies mom]

Originally Posted by palil

wellll... Maybe it is.. ? I'm truly asking... trying to sort it out in my own mind.

I do understand what you're saying... I'm trying to grasp whether it is *ALL* a matter of semantics, or if there is some crucial element that distinguishes appropriate cause-and-effect responses to a pre-logic child from inappropriate logical consequences to a pre-logic child.

Not allowing a natural consequence to happen is what I consider blocking natural consequences or protecting something/one. That's different from generating an "effect" as a disciplinary response to a child's behavioral "cause."

(still mulling... thanks for the responses and I'm continuing to read/think)

OK let's see...

For pre-logic children, cause and effect and logical consequences should be the same. If a pre-logic child needs "cause and effect" consequences than a consequence that is not related is not logical, and is most likely inappropriate.

If Ellie colours on the wall, she helps me clean the wall and we put away the crayons and move on to something else. It is related and appropriate. She can make the connection between "I colour on the walls means I can't colour". Now say Ellie coloured on the walls and I told her she had to turn off the TV for the night. It is unrelated. There is no cause and effect. It would be an inappropriate logical consequence for a pre-logic child because they aren't going to make the connection. Now say it was an older child capable of a basic level of logic, it might be appropriate. It is still unrelated but the child can make the connection.

Ok, I need to come back to this, a certain pre-logic child is convinced she is going to starve and I can't think.