If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... Three years later, I ask you again: where is your scientific evidence of measurable long term benefit to children from spanking? If you have none, please signify by ignoring this question, or perhaps by vanishing again. In a free society, it is not up to a person who wants to do something to prove that what he wants to do will be beneficial. Rather, it is up to a person who wants to regulate another's actions to prove that the action will be harmful. --------------------- Unless what they are doing is to someone else, then that burden exactly reverses because you're doing it to them and THEY are ALSO FREE!!! It can be argued that the fact that punishment is unpleasant to the person who is being punished is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to view punishment as harmful. However, if we adopted that view as a matter of blind principle, we could not punish robbers, rapists, and murderers. -------------------- They deserve it. Someone merely availing themselves of THEIR Rights does NOT! Children have RIGHTS TOO!!! Our laws recognize that when one person's actions harm another, whether physically or in some other way, punishment can be used to try to stop (or at least slow down) the actions. --------------------- Not true of children availing themselves of their Rights!! So while at least from a theoretical perspective, an excellent case could be made for requiring parents to make an effort at using positive methods to guide their children's behavior before they are allowed to resort to threats and punishment, it is not possible to use our society's normal operating principles as a basis for arguing that parents should never be allowed to punish no matter how much trouble their children's behavior is causing them. ---------------------------- The parents "trouble" is irrelevant, unless trhe child causes it by actions regarded as criminal if they were an adult, and with no dishonest attempts by you to side-step this issue, if you please!!! If positive methods are not working, or are requiring an unreasonable amount of time and effort from the parents before the child finally decides to cooperate, punishment is not clearly unreasonable. ----------------- If the child is within their Rights, is IS INHERENTLY UNREASONABLE!! (And whatever one wants to argue about long-term effects, there are very clearly situations where spanking can produce useful results in regard to children's short-term behavior - especially in situations where there is no possibility that the children won't get caught.) ------------------------------------- Nonsense. Abuse only causes hatred and deception, not obedience. *IF* they had done something criminal, their conscience would tell them they've done wrong. Then a punishment of detention might be appropriate. But if that isn't true and they were only availing themselves of their Rights, they will experience merely raw hatred and vengeance formation, and progressive resistance to punishment so that they WILL finally attack you. Further, the idea that spanking is somehow inherently more cruel than other forms of punishment is easily refuted by the existence of situations where children PREFER a spanking over an alternative form of punishment that would not be considered excessively cruel. ---------------- Absolute nonsense, abused kids do that merely to avoid worse parental beatings. It is still abuse and entails vengeance formation and antisocial fixation. I've seen few things more irrational than the idea that it is abusive to paddle a child at school instead of suspending the child even if the child would rather be paddled than suspended. ----------------- Either are abusive, both unreasonable and harmful to faculty, student, and society!!! I imagine there are children who have what might be called an "allergic" reaction to spanking, that is, a reaction that is much more strongly negative than is normal. ------------------ No, they are merely farther down the road toward attacking you. You can wind up with your ****ing house burned down that way. But in general, there is no logically sound moral reason why spanking should be rejected in favor of other forms of punishment in situations where punishment can be defended as legitimate. -------------------------- Absolute abusive lie by an obvious chronic abuser who should be prosecuted or killed. I've said all this to lay the following foundation: ------------------------ The "foundation" lays upon dangerously shifting sand, and your sense of responsibility is only to your perversion, nothing more. (1) Under the views of the majority of society, there is no logically sound reason for viewing it as automatically immoral for parents to punish, and (2) there is no logically sound reason for rejecting spanking as inherently more cruel than other forms of punishment. ---------------- Except that all the evidence points to it causing a vast increase in crime and antisocial behavior where it was attempted. It was once tried in prisons in England in the 16th century, but it made prisons so dangerous they couldn't hire enough guards!! When they restricted prison to incarceration as punishment, the prisons became staffable again and inmates who had been in solitary for years because of them trying to kill anyone near them became social and even friendly again. Therefore, if one wants to build a case that parents must not spank using a philosophical basis acceptable to most Americans, that case has to be built on scientific evidence showing that spanking causes sufficient long-term harm to outweigh its short-term benefits. ----------------- The burden is on the criminal, not their victims. Otherwise, if parents cannot obtain acceptable behavior within a reasonable amount of time using positive methods, they are justified in using the threat of spanking (and, if necessary, actual spanking) for the short-term benefits it produces WHETHER OR NOT spanking produces long-term benefits compared with if they spent a lot more time and effort trying to resolve the issue using purely non-punitive techniques. ------------------------------------ Nope, that causes worse outcomes and no reasonable results, you have done nothing but tell lies of sick wish-fulfillment and perversion here, and your honesty is questionable on a thread where you waste vast amounts of time arguing for such an inherently sick perversion!!! (Obviously, this argument does not work if one accepts Steve's view that parents owe it to their children to do whatever it takes to solve problems through purely non-punitive techniques. ---------------------------------- We believe that should be the case for adults. They aren't allowed to bully people to get what they want!! Why do you think that this would be good to permit adults to do??? Why would you fancy that children have different desires, or have different needs or responses? We do not abuse adults because they would harm us, why do we think children wishing to kill us is some good outcome??????? But the majority does not believe that children's interests should outweigh those of parents to that degree.) ---------------------------------- The majority is ignorant and many or most were raised abusively, they don't know anything else, and the revenge formation they experienced is A BIG PART of their secret reason for wanting to beat on and bully small children, it 'pays them back' for their own abuse as a child for which they are still insecure and feel and are immature as a consequence!!! It is the same as fraternity hazing. You would always feel like a wussy little pledge if you never got to do a role-reversal and pay a new class pack for what the senior class did to YOU when YOU were the newbie!! That's the sick nature of such fraternity hazing, but it applies to parents and children equally if they engage in this hereditary abuse!! So what does the evidence say? Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study shows a truly enormous distinction between the effects parents can expect if they spank only when they have themselves firmly under control and those they can expect if they spank as a result of losing their tempers. ---------------------------------- You're lying, misquoting and mischaracterizing. And nobody *I* know have ever SEEN this imaginary reported "controlled spanking" bull**** among parents, every parental abuse I ever witnessed the hatred and abusive ideation was fully involved, and the beating vicious. And as for the supposed controlled "paddling" in schools, I observed it caused the teachers to be assaulted, threatened, their families endangered, so much so that the only ones who tried it either retired early from teaching or were fired. It was a major cause of kids winding up in prison, and two teachers I knew were severely harmed. In the process, it pretty much blows all of the other studies out of the water insofar as parents who always do a self-diagnostic to make absolutely sure they have themselves under control before they spank are concerned. --------------------- More of your self-reported dog**** and abusive wish=fulfillment. In essence, as best I can tell, that one study puts the anti-spanking side pretty much back to square one in regard to the question of whether parents should never spank or whether they can expect equally good results if they merely are very careful that they spank only for the right reasons. [] Nathan ----------------- I'm tired of your unbelievably blatant lying about the results of research, I've never seen such a degree of intentional distortion, even out of Doan, you should be ashamed of yourself. Steve |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Grades are merely a measurement device. Thus, the reward of a good grade is the reward of doing something successfully, much as winning a game because one played it well is a reward or playing a song on the piano well is a reward. Conversely, bad grades "punish" in the same sense that losing a game as a result of making mistakes is a "punishment" or making mistakes while playing the piano is a "punishment." ---------------------- Kids KNOW whether they are doing well, just from doing it. Not really. Children can think they know how to do something but then turn out to have been doing it the wrong way. (And no, I'm not just talking about doing it a different right way from what the teacher said.) So some kind of system of identifying mistakes and calling them to children's attention is needed whether or not a formal grade is assigned. They just don't know how the class is doing. Grades compare them to others, and are then inherently not useful, because a child who likes the subject will do as well as they can, and one who doesn't like it, won't, no matter what! You see no possibility that a child's knowledge of how well or poorly he is doing in a subject compared with others might affect the child's priorities? Suppose a child wants to be good at both English and Math. If he knows he's doing better than average in Math, but worse than average in English, that could provide an incentive to spend a bit less time on Math and a bit more on English. I don't know how often that sort of thing would happen, but it at least could. Further, even in purely non-coercive households, parents might try to encourage a child to want to work harder in a subject that the child is not doing well in. ("You want to be a lawyer, right? Lawyers have to be really good in English.") And in coercive families, parents may require a child to study harder in a subject the child is not doing well in. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: You can bully such teachers by arranging appointments with them and haranguing them, they are late getting home a number of times and they learn not to **** with your kid. Also, you let the kid leave school at 14 or 15 or home-school them and dummy the reports to the state. If you're a great parent your kid will learn more on their own anyway. Yet another example of, "Coercion is terrible. Let's use coercion to get rid of it." (And note, by the way, that this is an example of coercion used when the person being targeted is NOT violating the law.) Worse, where the child's love for and relationship with his parents provides a motivation for cooperating with their desires, the child does not have similar love for or a similar relationship with the teacher. ---------------------- Nonsense, the model of everyone is the parent. It's hard to even convince them the teacher might not be nice if YOU are! I'm sure there's an element of truth to that, especially insofar as children's willingness to give a teacher the benefit of the doubt is concerned. But even so, I can't really see children going as far out of their way to avoid causing problems for a teacher they hardly even know as they would to avoid causing problems for their parents. Ultimately, what a purely non-punitive parenting style needs is either home schooling or a kind of school that is more oriented toward cooperating with the child's desires. And in a voucher system, parents who want to could experiment with such schools without imposing their preferences (or their children) onto others. Personally, I would expect mixed results from such schools, with some bending over too far backwards catering to children's whims but others finding ways to interest children in learning. ----------------------------------- We need to ban vouchers because it causes societal schizm. We need to subject everyone to viciousness so that they'll gang up on it and change it. The "societal schism" argument used in regard to government schools today is almost exactly the same one used with state churches around the time our nation was founded. But the prophets of doom were wrong then, and I think they are also wrong today. Opponents of choice sometimes claim that vouchers would cause "Balkanization." But the real problem in the Balkans was that the different groups fought each other over who would get to impose their will onto everyone, gaining an advantage for themselves and imposing a disadvantage onto others. That is what happens in the public school monopoly system, not what would happen with vouchers. In other areas of life, people can make their own choices for themselves and for their families, and issues very rarely enter the public policy arena. With education, government tries to impose a single choice or only a small range of choices on everyone, and we fight about it constantly. I think there's a lesson in that. If we want less Balkanization in our society, we should change from a system that forces families to fight each other just to get what they want for their own children to one that lets families get what they want for their own children without forcing their preferences onto others. But if parents who use non-punitive techniques at home do want to send their children to a school that is not prepared to cater sufficiently to their children's desires, I think they should have two choices: either the parents accept responsibility for finding non-punitive solutions that deal with the issue to the school's satisfaction in a timely manner, or they allow the school to punish. Anything else is grossly unfair to the other children in the class, and also to the teacher whose hands are tied by both the school administration and the parents. ------------------- Nonsense, kids who are treated properly are no trouble at all at school, leave them alone as if you're ignoring them and they'll do what they ought to do anyway and learn by osmosis! These are the kind who read a book in math class and ace the test. I was, my kids were. As long as it works, that's fine. I did that sort of thing myself quite a bit. Of course one does have to wonder, though, at the wasted potential when children who have that kind of ability are held down to the pace of the rest of the class. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Doan wrote: On 16 Jun 2004, Kane wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doan" Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing" I wouldn't this far. Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity. Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and learning. So where are they? How have their children faired? Did they grow up to be a Mother Theresa? A Ted Turner? Or do they grow up to be like you and Steve ? ;-) Doan ------------------ You'd be glad to have a kid like me! And you never would. Steve If I have a kid like you, I would KILL it before it turned three month old. Isn't that the kind of INFANTICIDE that have said would be OK with you? ;-) Doan |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Donna Metler wrote: "toto" wrote in message No, actually, what has been pushed is *not* teaching without punishing, though teaching without corporal punishment has been pushed in 27 states for more than a decade. Using different punishments like detentions and bad grades is still punitive. And what has been pushed is using material rewards like stickers and bribes which is the other side of the control coin. It works just as poorly. Detention isn't allowed in my school-too many parents don't want it. IN general, just about everything which could be deemed "punitive" has been disallowed. A teacher in my school was given a formal reprimand just for requiring that students clean up a mess that they had made-because it was "humiliating" for the students. And teachers are told not to use rewards because it "ruins intrinsic motivation". ------------------- You're merely lying in everything you just said. How pitiful. Steve Looking in the mirror again, Steve? ;-) Doan |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Doan wrote: On 17 Jun 2004, Chris wrote: This brings us right back to our aborted, unfinished debate of 2001, Nathan; aborted because you disappeared and days later said you "didn't have time" to debate about the scientific studies on spanking. You did your best to discredit the available evidence linking spanking to a wide variety of negative long term effects on children. When you disappeared was after I invited you to now produce evidence of equal rigor in support of your own position, adding that I would of course expect your evidence to meet all of the same standards you had recently demanded of evidence cited by me. Three years later, I ask you again: where is your scientific evidence of measurable long term benefit to children from spanking? If you have none, please signify by ignoring this question, or perhaps by vanishing again. Chris Here is what Chris said about Straus & Mouradina (1998) study in the past: However, there is evidence that this connection exists, however it may work. Gunnoe & Mariner (1997) and Straus et al. (1997) both found that the more children were spanked at the beginning of each study, the more their behavior had deteriorated years later in comparison with other children the same age, despite controlling for a variety of other variables such as maternal warmth/involvement, family socioeconomic status, race, sex, etc. Since neither of these studies had a "never spanked" group, they cannot rule out the possibility that low levels of spanking had positive effects. However, another study did look at children who had never been spanked by their mothers versus children who were spanked very infrequently and the difference in age adjusted antisocial behavior scores was quite pronounced. The children in the never-spanked group were markedly more well-behaved than even the most rarely-spanked children. And my response: "Chris is now admitting that there are evidence of beneficial effects of low-level spanking. ------------------ No, you were a ****ty little liar then as now. Steve LOL! Typical respond from a "never-spanked" boy. And I thought you were constipated! Doan |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"Tori M." wrote in message ... This whole thing is unrealistic and will set a child to fail later in life. If you do something bad 90% of the time there will be consequences. What you don't seem to realize is that eliminating punishment is not eliminating consequences. In a school setting if a child does not do their homework, they get a poor-- this is consequences. What is not necessary are lectures, remaining after school, notes home to parents, meetings about what a terrible child this is, etc. A simple statement from the teacher that this child *WILL* receive a poor grade if this behavior continues, followed by a poor grade is all that is necessary. In the home setting there are also consequences. If you spill your drink at diner, you clean it up-- again, no lectures, or spankings or time in the corner or restrictions are needed. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message ... "Chris is now admitting that there are evidence of beneficial effects of low-level spanking. Good, but he went on to misrepresent the Straus & Mouradin (1998) study. As I have pointed out early, and Chris cannot dispute this, the study only asked the mothers thus there is no true "never-spanked" group to speak of. Furthermore, this study included children as old as 14 years and by asking only about spankings in the last 6-months, there is a period of up to 13.5 years where spankings were not even accounted for. In short, the study just don't support what Chris claimed above." Unless my memory is failing me miserably, Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study did include a category of mothers who spanked but had not spanked in the last six months. So it did draw a distinction between those who never spanked and those who did not spank recently. That is a BIG difference from what Chris claimed. Like I've said before, a fourteen year old kid can be spanked 1,000 times a year for the first 13 years of his life (13,000 times) can still be included in this "not spanked in the "previous six-month" group. Did that sounded like "rarely spanked" to you? Of course that still leaves the issue of how many mothers might have started off never intending to spank, didn't like their results, and ended up changing their minds and spanking at least once. When a group is allowed to eject at least some of its less successful results into another group, that can easily make the group look more effective than it really is. Yes, another problem is the fact that parents seldom use spanking exclusively. Most parents spank becasue the non-cp alternativde DID NOT WORK! As Straus said: "CP is typically a response to misbehavior, particularly after one or more other intervention have been tried repeatedly and the misbehavior they are meant to correct recurs." In Straus & Mouradian (1998), non-cp alternatives predicted ASB 10 times more strongly than did non-impulsive spanking. Now you know why Chris doesn't dare to discuss this study with you for days now! :-) Doan |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Scientific truth is not determined by majority vote. ------------------- True, but people who collect selective support and discard most that do not should be required to do so if only to keep them honest! It is determined by the proper use of scientific methodologies and ONLY by the proper use of scientific methodologies. If scientists express opinions that go beyond what the methodologies they use can support, those opinions are merely PERSONAL opinions, not science. -------------------- The thing is, it cannot BE carried on fairly either on Usenet OR in any private conversation, the budget is not available! Any such situation then requries instead that people argue from structure, which is the way people actually change minds and come to believe new things anyway, and NOT through evidence, as odd as that seems! Would you please explain what you mean by arguing from "structure"? In the past, Chris suggested a few studies for me to read. However, from what I recall, those studies were always in terms of whether or not childen were spanked (or, in some cases, whether or not they were spanked within a prticular timeframe). As best I recall, none of them separated out a group in which no punishment of any kind was used, or in which punishment was used only in regard to situations in which the children's behavior would be a crime for adults. Therefore, the results of those studies provide no scientific basis for evaluating the results parents get from using purely non-punitive techniques. ----------------------- It takes an infinitude of studies to convince absolutely in a peer- reviewed arena, but doing so is not actually needed to prove anything reasonably. Instead, the reasonableness of believing this or that, namely an honest impersonal structural argument is superior! It does not take an "infinitude" of studies to make a compelling case. Just enough studies, and sufficiently diverse studies, to address whatever credible challenges are raised. For example, the tobacco industry long ago gave up trying to explain away the evidence that smoking is harmful because they no longer had any credible challenges left that research had not addressed. If you are aware of any studies that looked specifically at parents who never punished at all, or who never punished except when the children's behavior would be considered a crime in adults, or some such, I would probably find it interesting to look at. ----------------- In this culture those would be hard to find, but in the entire body of the research that conclusion is entirely implied by the trends in history and the research overall. This can be discerned by the logical reasonable person. The fact that too much of something is harmful does not imply that its total absence would be a good thing. Clearly, too much reliance on authority and punishment is harmful. But evidence supporting that conclusion does NOT inherently support the conclusion that a total absence of coercion except in response to violations of adult laws would be reliably good. Further, I know from my own experience that your "structural arguments" are built on an incorrect (or, at the very least, not reliably correct) model of how children react to being coerced. You choose to deny that, because you are so convinced in your model's reliability that you completely ignore evidence to the contrary. But in doing so, you pretty thoroughly demolish your credibility from my perspective. Nathan |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, toto wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:42:25 -0500, "Tori M." wrote: To raise a child to not have cause and effect other then the "natural consequenses" (IE sticking a fork in the outlet will get the child shocked) is just as bad IMO then to over punish a child. Children learn easily that *other people* can be punitive without having their parents punish them. Yes, that is why it is better for their parents to prepare them for the REAL WORLD, not Oz land. Do you want your children to grow up and be like Steve? :-) Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |