 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / October 2005The Dumbest Claim of the Month
How many times has this unbelievably stupid statement been made in the face of a huge problem with child abuse in this, and other countries? "As adults I think we can tell the difference between abuse and discipline." No, as a matter of fact many people classified as "adults" do NOT demonstrate they know the difference. That IS what most child protection workers find in their cases investigating abuse, "I was just spanking him for misbehaving." The cases, including that statement, were accompanied by bruises, lacerations, even broken bones...yet we keep saying such things as though they were universally true. The fact is adults can NOT tell when enough is enough, or too much. Time and again parents have "punished," only to find the child was sick or in the long run, with a neurological evaluation, incapable of behaving as the parent wished. I've seen far too much of this over the years working with children in mental health. A child with a clear diagnosis of neurological disorder or damage being "punished" for behaviors they were not capable of controlling no matter what one did TO the child. Though the child can be patiently taught to change unwanted behaviors using non-punitive methods. Then there is the parent nearly or completely devoid of knowledge of the normal progession of human development in the child. They expect what the child can't do...like "share" at 2 or 3 years old consistently. They expect a child to "not touch" when it's the human condition to explore to learn, and nothing of more power in a child's life at age three and about 15 can match the sheer force of the drive to explore. That's why I alway say to parents of the children I was responsible for, "to understand your teen, note that they are divisable by five, so what do you get when you divide your child of fifteen's age by five?" There are a nearly endless variety of methods to parenting without punishment it always astounds me anyone would take the risks inherent in NOT knowing where the line is between "discipline" and "injury" of one kind or another inherent in using corporal punishment. I mean, an adult can't figure out how to get around a child's behaviors? Please. 0:-> kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Wrote: > How many times has this unbelievably stupid statement been made in the > face of a huge problem with child abuse in this, and other countries? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The fact is adults can NOT tell when enough is enough, or too much. Interesting. Yet an 'adult' CPS worker can tell when 'enough is enough', whereas an 'adult' parent cannot? This could prove an interesting thing to research. Care to cite a bona fide source used for this 'fact'? Thanks.  SignatureMichael© Oobalewee© Postings comply with 17 U.S.C. § 107 and are my sole opinion. ©Michael Currently harvesting Hell's half-acre. > kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Interesting. Yet an 'adult' CPS worker can tell when 'enough is > enough', Yes, as long as they follow statute and policy. In fact my focus on reform of CPS addresses this very thing. I want them better trained, more experienced, and better paid so that people with more skill, intelligence, and ability are hired. Other opinions differ, and would like to try and get blood from a turnip. > whereas an 'adult' parent cannot? I did not say they "cannot." I said that "... as a matter of fact many people classified as "adults" do NOT demonstrate they know the difference." Would you care to argue in opposition to what I actually said, or is it necessary to make things up as you go, just as you forged my post yesterday to make it appear I had something I had not? > This could prove an > interesting thing to research. I don't need to research it. The federal government simply keeps the data that proves that many parents in fact do NOT know the limits when it comes to discipline. > Care to cite a bona fide source used for > this 'fact'? No, you know perfectly well the data says that hundreds of thousands of parents in fact do hit and abuse their children and will try and claim they were just disciplining. Or do you believe they immediately, upon questions of the CPS abuse investigator, all confess that "yes, I hit my kid deliberately to do injury?" Some even kill their children in such actions. Stop playing the fool. It's obvious that you are up to the usual dodging the questions I asked that you do nor or cannot answer. Do you work for cps? > Thanks. Yer most welcome. All you need do is look up the data. It's been cited here repeatedly by myself and others in the course of many an argument. Are you planning to continue to dodge my questions? If so, then you are a liar and have no right to be asking anything of others on this ng. But then the unethical and immoral tend to think they are above the niceties of polite society. Same thing that sociopaths indulge in. 0:-> kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Wrote: [snip] > I did not say they "cannot." I said that "... as a matter of fact many > people classified as "adults" do NOT demonstrate they know the > difference." You said they 'can NOT', see below. > Would you care to argue in opposition to what I actually said, or is > it necessary to make things up as you go, just as you forged my post > yesterday to make it appear I had something I had not? You deny now posting: 'The fact is adults can NOT tell when enough is enough, or too much.'? [1] [1] http://tinyurl.com/9hjp8 A forger posted this then, and not you? >> This could prove an interesting thing to research. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to the usual dodging the questions I asked that you do nor or cannot > answer. I thought so, again. You state your opinion as fact and decline to cite a source where one can scrutinize the veracity of this 'fact' you claim. [snip the tripe] > 0:-> > kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Wrote: > > [snip] You creatively snipped the context so that the reader would be mislead. > > I did not say they "cannot." I said that "... as a matter of fact many > > people classified as "adults" do NOT demonstrate they know the > > difference." > > You said they 'can NOT', see below. Michael, you are once again creatively snipping. You are a liar. Now you prove it again. I said BOTH, so you cannot deny I said one and not the other. > > Would you care to argue in opposition to what I actually said, or is > > it necessary to make things up as you go, just as you forged my post [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > data that proves that many parents in fact do NOT know the limits when > > it comes to discipline. That IS the fact. Many cannot and do not know the limits. You are dodging the issue, with a pretense of debate. The issue is this: are there parents that cannot tell the difference and know the limits? Try arguing the issue, rather than a semantic irrelevancy. What "fact" would I post, and in the absence of it, make my claim untrue? Do you really want to argue that there are no parents that do not know child development, the limits of abuse v discipline? You are making a monumental fool of yourself. I'm not even helping. > >> Care to cite a bona fide source used for this 'fact'? Care to cite a bona fide source that can support the claim that thievery is a bad thing? Or would you be okay if someone broke into your car and stole the dashboard? What proof can you offer that it's "bad." A bona fide source please. http://www.zerotothree.org/fullreport.pdf Prepare to be buried under data supporting that in fact parents do NOT universally know or understand child development. This of course leads to abuses, neglect, and misuse of pain as discipline measure. > > No, you know perfectly well the data says that hundreds of thousands > > of parents in fact do hit and abuse their children and will try and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I thought so, again. You state your opinion as fact and decline to cite > a source where one can scrutinize the veracity of this 'fact' you claim. No, my opinion is obviously "fact." It would be impossible for all parents that are charged with child abuse to not have many among them that do not know the limits. http://www.zerotothree.org/fullreport.pdf I have not been to the moon. I don't claim it's made of green cheeze. I cannot prove it isn't made of green cheeze but logic and related facts tell us it's rock, dust, and meteor detrius. And among all the parents in the world, there are obviously a significant number that in fact cannot tell the difference between abuse and discipline. http://www.zerotothree.org/fullreport.pdf > [snip the tripe] Can't handle the truth. Want to debate the undebatable and claim that the undebatable must be answered or the opponent is lying, as in "veracity." http://www.zerotothree.org/fullreport.pdf You are a proven habitual liar by your posts, claims, refusal to stop dodging the questions. And, to top it off, you are both stupid, and ignorant. It's not like information is hard to find these days. Or are you in fact "exercising" me to keep me from asking those very embarrassing questions you keep lying about, Michael? You will find that I can handle considerably more than you have the wit to come up with and still not forget you haven't really answered at all, but instead are using the claim...a lie...that you have answered as an evasion. Try again. You can answer without evasion. Surely. 0:-> Those of you that want the information for debate, or for knowledge and unlike Michael can do something besides try to distract by a segue into what I did or did not say in a single word: http://www.zerotothree.org/pr-survey.html What the survey shows parents DO know: Parents Understand Many Important Issues Although adults lack significant information about some aspects of child development, most know a great deal about some key issues. For example, they understand: * Children's capabilities are not fully predetermined at birth and, in fact, parents and caregivers play a major role in their development. * Early experiences, even in the first months of life, have a significant impact on a child's capabilities much later in life. * Emotional closeness (i.e., love) with children has a profound impact on a child's intellectual, social and emotional development. What the survey shows they don't know (exactly as I've pointed out...hell I've done client and patient survey work on this myself): Parents Value Less Beneficial Forms of Play According to Dr. Pruett, "play is extremely important to a child's development; a way for children to learn about their world." While most parents understand the importance of play, there are still several information gaps: * Many parents place too much emphasis on less valuable forms of play, such as flashcards, educational television and computer activities. * Parents also don't understand the importance of the connection between physical play, such as playground activities, and intellectual development. Parents Expectations Aren't Always Appropriate Most American adults, according to the survey, are confused about what should be realistically expected from young children at different ages. * 51 percent of parents of young children expect a 15-month-old to share her toys, and 26 percent of all adults expect a three-year-old to sit quietly for one hour at a time - both unrealistic expectations, according to experts. * 26 percent of all adults, and 23 percent of parents of young children believe that a child as young as six-months will not suffer any long-term effects from witnessing violence. Child development research shows it can have long-lasting, detrimental effects on a child's social and emotional development and his developing brain. * 61 percent of all adults, and 55 percent of parents with young children, do not know when young babies begin to sense and are affected by the moods of others. This is crucial because child development research shows that if a caregiver is particularly anxious or depressed, it can have a damaging effect on a baby's development. * 40 percent of parents of young children incorrectly believe a 12-month-old who turns the TV on and off repeatedly while her parents are trying to watch it, believe she is "angry and trying to get back at them." * 72 percent of parents of young children were unaware that children as young as four months of age, can experience real depression; 51 percent believe children cannot experience depression until they are at least three years of age. You might like to read the full report...it's very long...if you have questions, but these are issues I dealt with professionally in mental health work for many years. It's nor really changed all that much from the 80s when I was doing that work actively. Too many Michaels out there, along with his buddies bobber, and greegor. 0:-> > Those of you that want the information for debate, or for knowledge and > unlike Michael can do something besides try to distract by a segue into > what I did or did not say in a single word: IOW, he caught me lying so now I will try some distraction of my own. ;-) [snipped] Doan Kane, It does appear that Michael is relying on semantics rather than debating the issue at hand. It is a fact that there are parents cannot and do not differentiate between discipline and abuse. I knew a mother whose child was in early childhood special education. The little girl kept reaching for pots on the stove. Her mother plunged the little girl's hands into a pot of hot water to teach her the danger of reaching for pots on the stove. She suffered third degree burns. Two years later her mother was still insisting that she was just disciplining her child and didn't know that she would be burned as badly as she was. I had a neighbor who locked her teenage son in the attic without food, water, or a bathroom to teach him to "mind her." She viewed this practice as discipline. Recently in my state a couple locked their child in a dog kennel for extended periods of time as discipline for "out of control behavior." The case went to court and they received a jail sentence for child abuse. Indeed, there are many parents who cannot and do not know the difference between discipline and abuse. And, we do not make it easier for these parents with our arbitrary laws and our blanket licenses to hit and hurt children in the name of discipline. LaVonne >>kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > 0:-> > Kane, > > It does appear that Michael is relying on semantics rather than debating > the issue at hand. In his case it appears more as lying than relying. He knows perfectly well what the truth is. After all, he claims to be a "certified peace officer." > It is a fact that there are parents cannot and do not differentiate > between discipline and abuse. The argument could be and has been put forward that given the relatively tiny size (highly debatable in a society that claims 90% or so of us are spanked by our parents) laws should not be created just to control the few at the expense of the many. This has two logical fallacies within it of course. That there will be an expense to the many, (not shown by countries that have passed such laws), and that people can't change. Well, there is a third, and it's about the very core of such an argument...that we need not have laws for the minority of us to control the mass of us. Would you agree that out of the entire population there are only a miniscule number that rob banks? Or kill, for that matter? So would I. Should we lobby for the removal of pertaining laws? > I knew a mother whose child was in early childhood special education. > The little girl kept reaching for pots on the stove. Her mother plunged [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disciplining her child and didn't know that she would be burned as badly > as she was. When I did my work study and practicum with Oregon CSD over 1980-81 I was assigned to compile (you know about student interns, of course...R R R R) data from case records. No computers were being used for the data collection then. All paper. The things I found. Grandmothers sexually abusing their grandchildren. Ritualistic tortures, including sexual torture, even bestiality. Not an amusing task, but it did give me considerable insight to those that claim CPS doesn't do its job, and there isn't that much to do. > I had a neighbor who locked her teenage son in the attic without food, > water, or a bathroom to teach him to "mind her." She viewed this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > parents with our arbitrary laws and our blanket licenses to hit and hurt > children in the name of discipline. An interesting argument. You contend then that child abuse of the kind you relate above, so called "discipline" that is so out of hand, would reduce under a law? Seems it worked that way in Sweden. I just wonder if US citizens would ease up on the children. I guess we are going to find out. I'm not willing to come to the end of my life without something more definitive happening toward the end of this brutal savagery toward children. I have to, in good conscience, get behind efforts to pass laws, or amend them, so that the rules that apply for adult assault and battery are extended fully to children. Possibly the domestic abuse statutes would work. We have some overlap now with assaults on children that rise to the level of criminal cases. Imagine. I, an adult, do not have to injured to make a criminal complaint and a civil one against someone that hits me, or attempts or threatens to. Yet a child is denied this protection. By law. No reason, just as I enjoy, a child should not be protected from the lessor injuries or insults of being hit, or threatened with it. Kane > LaVonne > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > > > 0:-> I must admit that I had to go back to the original post to see for sure, and it is 'do' not not 'can' not. But no matter. I agree that there are some parents or caregivers who do not know the difference and they should attend classes on parenting and perhaps anger management. As a child I was spanked and I rememeber each and everyone, there were only three. It didn't make me grow up to be violent or abusive. It didn't make me want to spoil children with things. I do expect when I require attention or action on a child's part that it will be followed through and if I have to discipline then I make sure I follow through. As for children with problems...one of my godsons has CP and he is the best behaved of the five siblings in his home. Yes his IQ is low and it takes him a few more minutes to accomplish things but he doesn't give the backtalk that his brothers and sister do, he doesn't run off and disappear. He is a kind and helpful young man and to many when they look at him have pity in their eyes. I have intervened on behalf of children who are dragged to stores when they should be napping or at a meal and the parents are losing it. I do think there is a place for spanking and that is not in the heat of the moment. I also think it should be a last resort when dealing with a child. But there truly are parents out there who can and do know the difference between discipline with love and abuse and they should be left to carry on raising their children to be the best that they can. Too many times I've seen agencies interfere with this and loving parents are dragged through the mill. I realise that each case is different and they should all be looked into, but if the parents are kind and the children are not afraid to speak their thoughts what does that say? On the other hand I've seen parental abuse that is haphazardly looked into and the children go on suffering. We all make mistakes and I don't think it's fair to cubbyhole so many. As for citing sources, on a topic such as this it would rather difficult. Cases are given the privacy that they deserve. If Michael wants to know what the powers that be think all he has to do is make an appointment and ask them, I'm sure they would be happy to quote statistics, real or not to him. I sound cynical and I suppose I am. I beleive that parents should be allowed to raise their children in the way they wish, with little interferences. But I also think that until family members are willing to raise red flags when needed, that we desperately need people who are willing to be yelled at, sworn at and treated badly. These are the folks who are willing to put themselves out for love of children and help to keep them safe. > I must admit that I had to go back to the original post to see for sure, > and it is 'do' not not 'can' not. But no matter. "No matter?" The meaning of words used don't matter? > I agree that there are some parents or caregivers who do not know the > difference and they should attend classes on parenting and perhaps anger > management. Yes. > As a child I was spanked and I rememeber each and everyone, > there were only three. That probably makes you atypical. > It didn't make me grow up to be violent or abusive. It didn't make me want > to spoil children with things. Those that are violent and abusive usually are not aware of it. I'm not sure what spoiling has to do with spanking. > I do expect when I require attention or action on a child's part that it > will be followed through and if I have to discipline then I make sure I > follow through. The question is, what is appropriate in asking for a child's attention or action. And what do you mean by "follow through?" Do you spank? Then isn't it possible you are not the best judge of "appropriate" and " violent or abusive?" > As for children with problems...one of my godsons has CP and he is the > best behaved of the five siblings in his home. Yes his IQ is low and it > takes him a few more minutes to accomplish things but he doesn't give the > backtalk that his brothers and sister do, he doesn't run off and > disappear. He is a kind and helpful young man and to many when they look > at him have pity in their eyes. Children with disabilities can become accutely aware of their vulnerability. Do you wish children without CP to well behaved because they are afraid? > I have intervened on behalf of children who are dragged to stores when > they should be napping or at a meal and the parents are losing it. > I do think there is a place for spanking and that is not in the heat of > the moment. I also think it should be a last resort when dealing with a > child. Why a "resort" of any kind? Why not simply learn and use other strategies that work as well, or better, and have zero risk compared to hitting a child? > But there truly are parents out there who can and do know the difference > between discipline with love and abuse and they should be left to carry on > raising their children to be the best that they can. Actually that brings up a very significant question. Can we really say, with all assurance, what you just said? That all parents, or any, know with certainty what the limit is, the dividing line, between safe "corporal punishment" for discipline, and injury to mind and or body? A child may be sick and not functioning well, or simply not developmentally ready to respond as the parent desires. Children are each different. Give all the myriad variables in place in child rearing, from child to parent to surroundings to circumstances how can we be so sure that any parent actually knows that it's "safe" on this occasion to spank? Why not use gentle methods? In fact why not use ONLY non-punitive methods? Why do we need to cause another discomfort for the purpose of "teaching?" I never needed to. I might have done so, inadvertently, but I was always aware, especially later as I observed the reactions and outcomes, that I should NOT have used a tone of voice, or words, that were punishing in their effect. And more and more as I learned to be more supportive the better the results were. In fact I often worried my children were sometimes too compliant and concerned with my feelings and wants for and about their behavior. > Too many times I've seen agencies interfere with this and loving parents > are dragged through the mill. BS > I realise that each case is different and > they should all be looked into, but if the parents are kind and the > children are not afraid to speak their thoughts what does that say? You think a child can't, by spanking parents, be trained to appear to be outgoing? Hell, look at the Pearl family. Pictures of them have everyone smiling with what appears to look almost like death rictus. It's chilling how 'cheerful' they all appear. Brrrrrr. These are people that avocate the painful punishment of month old babies. > On the other hand I've seen parental abuse that is haphazardly looked into > and the children go on suffering. I've noticed that if I look hard enough, or even casually 0:->, that I can find errors nearly everywhere and in everyone. Now I can use such events for lying, or for telling the truth, or for even fooling myself, if I'm inclined that way. But the truth is more important than my comfort. > We all make mistakes and I don't think it's fair to cubbyhole so many. Then don't. You have labelled a set of parents as being "okay" and "knowing" when it's okay to hit and how to hit, presuming you mean without risk to the child. > As for citing sources, on a topic such as this it would rather difficult. > Cases are given the privacy that they deserve. > If Michael wants to know what the powers that be think all he has to do is > make an appointment and ask them, I'm sure they would be happy to quote > statistics, real or not to him. What would be a non-"real" statistic? Do you mean they would lie? > I sound cynical and I suppose I am. I beleive that parents should be > allowed to raise their children in the way they wish, with little > interferences. What you don't get is that this true already. Notice we have not a single state with a law against spanking children by their parents, and even some states allow others in authority to spank the child (schools). > But I also think that until family members are willing to > raise red flags when needed, that we desperately need people who are > willing to be yelled at, sworn at and treated badly. These are the folks > who are willing to put themselves out for love of children and help to > keep them safe. There's no possible response to such a statement. Not a sensible one. 0:-> You know, this was originally meant to back you up in what you had written, but you seem to think that everyone is out to get you for some reason. By 'no matter', I meant it didnt matter that I had to go and make sure, unlike Michael who just ranted about it. Maybe it makes me atypical but the three I received were not for any purpose that I could see, not then and not now. I agree that most people who are violent and abusive are not aware of it. I do not hit, and when I do hurt someone's feelings with words I am quick to apologise. This doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from mistakes, but sometimes I just don't think before I open my mouth like so many of us do. Where did fear come into this? I would not wish for any child to ever have to be afraid of the very people that they should feel protected by. It would crush me if I thought for one moment that any of the kids in my life were afraid. I don't think that is the case though, they all hang around too much. The spoiling comes from the well wishers that were abused, 'I'll never... fill in the blanks.' I personally do not spank. I use the time honoured 'time out' or if needed I sit down with whomever and we talk it over. There are times when a child just can't manage to do what has been asked and I tend to honour that. Also, I do not expect a three-year-old to clean a room, do the laundry or cook a meal. I do understand age appropriate chores. If a child is sick or tired the last thing anyone should do is expect them to anything more than rest. I know I do when I feel bad or tired, why shouldn't they? I can't say there is absolutely no room for not spanking. I've seen far to many nonspanked kids who are verbally abused as a matter of course. I don't know this family but I have seen what the cults can do and you are right, it's frightening. It's vey hard to know where love ends and I just think each case needs to be taken on it's own merits. Obviously these people needed a lot more involvement. Oh no not BS it happens and if you are so quick to judge maybe you need to talk to parents that have been. What about the moms and dads accused of abuse and the child has brittle bone disease? What about the young single mom whose daughter won't eat enough to get chubby and she is accused of starving her? I wasn't the one cubbyholing and still am not but you have on both ocassions. If someone doesn't agree with you whole heartedly they must be wrong. I may agree with you in principle, but that doesn't mean that I think you are totally right. I believe that agencies tell what they wish to tell and nothing more. Would we have known that kids were lost in the cracks if the papers hadn't somehow gotten wind of it? Doubtful. Would we have heard about the parents dragged through the dirt and found innocent if it weren't for the fact that they told their stories? And do you believe that agencies are always truthful? Take the rose coloured glasses off please. Why not a sensible one? Can you not find one kind word to say to the child caseworkers and what they have to endure? Are there no hooraahs for the protective childworkers who get called all kinds of names and screamed at? Sensibly I think we should give them the support they need and speak out for the children who need their help. Now to recap. No I do not advocate spanking children. No I do not advocate asking a small child to do things beyond their abilities. No I do not expect an older child to verbally abuse me or strike me either. No I do not expect a sick or tired child to do anything but rest and get refreshed. No I do not expect adults to sit back and let children be abused or emotionally damaged. Yes I think gentle loving care is the best way. Yes I think any child well respond well to being treated with respect and care. Yes I think most parents want the best for their children and try to make sure that they are doing the best job they can. No I am not as singleminded as you and will try to see both sides without condemnation and belittling. > You know, this was originally meant to back you up in what you had written, > but you seem to think that everyone is out to get you for some reason. > By 'no matter', I meant it didnt matter that I had to go and make sure, > unlike Michael who just ranted about it. I'm not sure who you are addressing. There were, as I recall, four posters besids yourself. Either use "attributions" on your reply (they are a feature of your newsreader, honest), or if you wish not to, at least use someone's name. Assuming throughout that you meant to address me: 1. I don't need back up. 2. I have no such thought. Some are, some aren't. Michael for instance, and LaVonne for another. Which do you think would be which in regard to me? Does that help you understand that I can "think" quite well when it comes to seeing the disposition of others toward me? > Maybe it makes me atypical but the three I received were not for any > purpose that I could see, not then and not now. Three? I presume you mean spankings? > I agree that most people who are violent and abusive are not aware of it. Yes. That would be a great subject to explore and I'd have enjoyed that more than you continuing sermon below. So then! Why do you think they are unaware of their own nature and behaviors being violent and abusive? > I do not hit, and when I do hurt someone's feelings with words I am quick > to apologise. This doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from mistakes, but > sometimes I just don't think before I open my mouth like so many of us do. Your second sentence is not entirely congruent with your first. Would you care to clarify? > Where did fear come into this? I would not wish for any child to ever have > to be afraid of the very people that they should feel protected by. >From my observation that people who are hit, child or adult, tend to feel fear with attacked, and if it's repeated by someone they know they fear future attacks. Fear is the tool spankers use. They will tell you so if they are honest. They tend to believe in fear as a teaching tool. I do not. > It > would crush me if I thought for one moment that any of the kids in my life > were afraid. I don't think that is the case though, they all hang around > too much. One of, if not the most, insidious parts of the spanking dynamic is that the child often learns to create an impenetrable facade. They do this for two motives. The first is the belief they deserve the parenting they are getting, pain, fear, and all, while the second is derives out of the normal human instinct for survival. Self protection. They will smile and hug the spanker...I nearly wrote, "perpetrator." They will agree with the spanker. They will NOT defend themselves assertively and directly any longer. Their lives then, do NOT belong to themselves, and they have become entirely incongruent....like our dancing monkeyboy. The will not know truth, nor facts when they see either. Everything becomes managed by their brain to fit the pattern the spanking offender laid down in them, no purpose or inadvertantly. It happens either way. There is a family picture of The Pearls, published authors and each the advocate of some pretty violent kinds of hitting of tiny little children, infants at the start of the "training them up" that is done. Those family pictures are the stereotypical set of children and family with smiling faces that to me appear as rictus seen in the dead. Huge forced smiles, and if you read their 'instruction' booklets they, in a fashion, admit to making their children LOVE, or appear to love, being hit. > The spoiling comes from the well wishers that were abused, 'I'll never... > fill in the blanks.' I'm not sure of your meaning. There is no such thing as spoiling a child by not hitting them, regardless of who the person is that refrains or what their wishes are, well or not. "Spoiling" is the spoiling of a child's development by the use of fear, pain, humiliation to make them appear to conform. The truth will come out, and likely hit the spanker in the face, when the child comes into their teens. > I personally do not spank. I use the time honoured 'time out' or if needed > I sit down with whomever and we talk it over. I never used timeout, but rather "timein" just as you described, and in fact more than you described. My children knew that if they did something not acceptable to me that they could safely come and sit with me, or even in my lap and not be hurt or humiliated. I'd explain my thoughts and feelings, sometimes even beliefs, in a non-blameful way and ask them to share theirs with me, and explore with me a way we each could get our needs met with respect to each other. It's not rocket science. Just how I would treat and adult that I love and respect. It works on either population. Those that were raised with PFH (pain fear and humiliation) can't fathom how this would work, because THEIR urge would be to overpower the other person and force them to accept conditions, or be overcome themselves and descend into hate and vengeful feelings. Or retreat and not think about it at all....dead inside. And later come back...not even getting the connection and punish the other person in some way, even to the point of self destructive behavior the other could witness. Suicide is often done for those very reasons. > There are times when a child > just can't manage to do what has been asked and I tend to honour that. Actually much of the time if the things being asked are not age developmentally appropriate. This may be the biggest instigator in child abuse where "discipline" was the intent of the parent, but injury resulted. Imagine...shaking a baby to stop their crying. Insane, or ignorant beyond belief. About as sane as the old b-movie trick of slapping an hysterical woman to calm her down. The fact is if someone, child or adult, is out of control, a warm loving embrace without demands laid on with it is the best tool one can bring to the issue. > Also, I do not expect a three-year-old to clean a room, do the laundry or > cook a meal. I do understand age appropriate chores. Since you didn't attribute my remarks I'm not sure I accused you of expecting them to. Or not understanding age appropriate chores. > If a child is sick or tired the last thing anyone should do is expect them > to anything more than rest. I know I do when I feel bad or tired, why > shouldn't they? But you often do NOT know you are getting sick until your dysfunction level reaches your conscience...and others are not likely to know it for a time either. Why take a chance a child is in fact sick, and no outward signs yet, but well below par in capacity to respond as you wish? Why hit them? > I can't say there is absolutely no room for not spanking. I've seen far to > many nonspanked kids who are verbally abused as a matter of course. YOu are of course unaware of my posting history, but I am notorious for confronting the pro spank supporters when the claim non-spanking punishments don't work...as though I advocated punishment at all. I don't. Punishment is NOT a traditionally used method to teach in this society...when you consider adults. It's used to wreak vengence...as in the prison system, or fines for violations of law. It is meant to produce some kind of pain and humiliation and create fear -- because the offender has violated social laws that they should, as adults, have known better than to do. Children do not know...not like and adult does, with the capacity for cause and effect reasoning...not until MUCH older than we would like to think. Recent studies of adolescents show what we have always joked about (knowing in our own memories subconsiously) that they are stupid as stumps about most things. And especially that they lack the capacity to monitor and censor themselves in risk situations like adults can and are supposed to. It's not a fault....it's built in. Nature does that to them. The actually do NOT have the brain pathways fully in place in their teens and won't until their early adulthood. (And for some, because of the punishment model of parenting, they may never have them fully developed and do all the stupid things you see adults do). > I don't know this family but I have seen what the cults can do and you are > right, it's frightening. It's vey hard to know where love ends and I just > think each case needs to be taken on it's own merits. Obviously these > people needed a lot more involvement. Like most people, I have more than one interest in life. In fact I have more than one conversational thread going in these and other related Usenet newsgroups. When you do not attribute my remarks and I have to joggle around trying to read all my posts to see what you are referring to, or confess to not remembering, it's more than annoying. It feels to me insulting and rude. Please attribute in the future to continue our conversation. And no, I don't think you are out to get me...I said I "FEEL" that way. I don't actually think you are...because thinking, as I define it, requires one to make claims and assumptions based on observable fact. > Oh no not BS it happens and if you are so quick to judge maybe you need to > talk to parents that have been. If you go up to your last paragraph you will see that this sentence (I've snipped nothing) makes no sense at all in that context. To what "it happens" are you referring? See the need for attributions? > What about the moms and dads accused of abuse and the child has brittle > bone disease? They have a powerful argument in court. On the other hand, what is there about a child having brittle bone disease that would stop an abuser from abusing them? If the child is found to have injuries consistent with abuse (and trained MDs can tell pretty well) the BBD is not sufficient excuse. > What about the young single mom whose daughter won't eat > enough to get chubby and she is accused of starving her? Okay, what would you like to argue there? What makes you think the authorities insist on chubby children? > I wasn't the one cubbyholing and still am not but you have on both > ocassions. Please explain. > If someone doesn't agree with you whole heartedly they must be > wrong. No, that is unethical for you to make such a statement when the nature of debate, argument, is to disagree with the other, until you agree. You create a cognitive dissonance by your claim. I would be wrong in either case...failing to keep my argument going with support if I did NOT press my disagreement, and apparently, at some kind of moral impasse if I do. > I may agree with you in principle, but that doesn't mean that I > think you are totally right. Please introduce me to someone that is totally right. I'm willing, even as an atheist, to meet Jesus. (I kind of think the actual person, if he existed, was not always right either.) > I believe that agencies tell what they wish to tell and nothing more. No, they are under court order often to tell what the court wishes them to tell, and the court (which would include all officers thereof, including the plaintiffs lawyer) will see all the record, and ask all the questions it wishes and they will be answered fully under penalty, should they be caught lying, of contempt. It's happened. I've seen it. > Would we have known that kids were lost in the cracks if the papers hadn't > somehow gotten wind of it? Doubtful. Would we have known if we sent a moon mission without the media? You have no point to make with such a statement. Did you see me argue that the media shouldn't report on such event? > Would we have heard about the parents > dragged through the dirt and found innocent if it weren't for the fact > that they told their stories? And do you believe that agencies are always > truthful? Take the rose coloured glasses off please. Please point out proof of your claim, posed as a rhethorical question (based on your following statement above), that I believe agencies are always truthful. > Why not a sensible one? What? "Sensible one," what? > Can you not find one kind word to say to the child > caseworkers and what they have to endure? Are there no hooraahs for the > protective childworkers who get called all kinds of names and screamed at? You wandering terribly, and as I noticed before, falling into babble, even contradictory babble. In one sentence I'm an agency apologist supporter, and the next I'm speaking ill of workers. I don't give workers "kind" words. I give them recognition of the good work they do, when they do it, and withhold it when they don't, and on some occasions place blame squarely on them for failure. In a recent long visited subject in another thread where the opponent would love to portray me as an apologist the main point of my argument is that their failure to follow guidelines in founding cases according to federal definitions has resulted in a bad count of actual abuse, or lack of it. Does that sound like I am exclusively condemning, or always congratulatory of CPS agencies and their workers? > Sensibly I think we should give them the support they need and speak out > for the children who need their help. You have gotten progressively weirder as you write. > Now to recap. No I do not advocate spanking children. You are willing for others to. I do not advocate the death penalty, but I don't just leave it at that and pat myself on the back. If I am not outspokenly against it, then I am in fact, since it is done, supporting it. You are supporting, by your attempt at some kind of neutrality, the spanking of children. > No I do not advocate asking a small child to do things beyond their > abilities. Others do, but act in ignorance. How well versed are you in early childhood development? > No I do not expect an older child to verbally abuse me or strike me > either. Then raise them with the respect you would have for any adult. Or, if you wish to get a similar reaction from them when they are old enough, insult them like you would an adult. Hit them. Call them names. Humilate them regularly. > No I do not expect a sick or tired child to do anything but rest and get > refreshed. How do you know they are sick or tired and not just defying you? > No I do not expect adults to sit back and let children be abused or > emotionally damaged. Sure you do. You are just excusing yourself from the fray and pretending to innocence. You are supporting, by your failure to take a stand against, the act of hitting children and abusing them and emotionally damaging them. > Yes I think gentle loving care is the best way. Until you get that it's the only way, you haven't gotten the point. Once you do, we could argue, and have fun doing so, what are the best ways to do that most effectively. I gota million of'em. > Yes I think any child well respond well to being treated with respect and > care. Yep. Unless they are compromised in some way. Health, mental health, energy, developmental inability level, or just being human, like we adults ,and sometimes wanting to do what they want to do. Unless I threaten you you have NOT right to hit me. You should not with children either. > Yes I think most parents want the best for their children and try to make > sure that they are doing the best job they can. Actually I am finding rather a lot of ignorance, and in fact inability to even act on what comes out of their mouths as claims for the benefits of their children. I suspect their own abusive childhoods have crippled their thinking ability, and they old emotions from childhood are spilling into their child rearing practices. > No I am not as singleminded as you and will try to see both sides without > condemnation and belittling. I am not condemning or belittling. I'm telling spankers and punishers are wrong. Sometimes they need a little of what they dish out or support being dished out to children to get how incongruous their claims are that a child "learns" when hit. How have you done each time I've insulted out, compared to the times I've given more supportive responses, eh? 0:-> Do you read? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.