"Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"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."
--------------
Yes, bullying is a crime, we shall use the bullying of the law to
eliminate it, as we have mostly eliminated all other crimes. Force
to oppose illegitimate force is legitimate!! The fact that force is
used is irrelevant to the fact of WHY force is used, and to achieve
what!! Achieving oppression of people is wrong, achieving freedom
for people is good, even if by force that supresses oppression and
defends freedom. You're blabbering insipid double-talk!!


(And note, by the way, that this is an example of coercion used
when the person being targeted is NOT violating the law.)
-------------
The Law is an ass, the New Law will supercede it! You are so asinine
that you are arguing from current law that something is not wrong and
we shouldn't make NEW law against it!! This is a logical fallacy,
you are arguing from a fact of law against change of law, irrelevant!!
You are saying, in effect: "Don't make a law against that because
it's legal to do this now!" That's illogical and a fallacy.

It's called: Appeal to Tradition, or Circulus in demonstrando.


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.
---------------------------------
Why? They see the teacher as an extention of their parent and young
students even assume that the two communicate!


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.
-----------------------------
Churches are not a public need, schools are!


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.
--------------------
That *IS* what happens with religious schools, they distort the
student's reality and subject the society to intellectually and
emotionally deformed people. Private schools simply cost too much
because they pay profit to the rich for no work, and they are not
part of a larger system and thus lack breadth advantages of scale.


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.
------------------
What people "want for" their children does NOT necessarily meet the
child's needs, and the child, being a citizen, is defended by the
State to make sure *HIS* needs are met, and NOT his ignorant parents'
provincial desires. If you want your kids to be smarter than you are,
and every parent SHOULD, then submit them to experts in teaching and
hold them to results by legal Statute!!


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.
---------------------------
Punishment of kids for following their rightful desires is entirely
abusive, unnecessary, harmful and emotionally and intellectually
deforming to a child. There is NO cause for it to a child who doesn't
commit crimes on school property. I believe that kids who commit
crimes in school should have the police called, and be arrested,
cuffed and taken to jail by police, and kept there in solitary till
arraignment and trial and sentencing, and then remain there to serve
their sentence, period!! The sentencing guidelines can be modified
for kids, but not much!


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.
---------------------------
They do fine, I did, nothing actually holds them back.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"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.)

And this is a perfect example of the anti-spanking zealotS' logic! :-)

Doan
------------
You're the one who's illogical.
Force is legitimate to stop illicit force.
Steve

Doan wrote:

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.
--------------
You wouldn't KNOW it was like me, and you'd be on death row.
I see that as a good outcome, proceed apace!!


Isn't that the kind of INFANTICIDE that have said would be OK
with you? ;-)
Doan
-----------------------
That would represent your stupidity, you'd have to be a hell of
a lot brighter than you are for it to be okay with me!!
Steve

Doan wrote:

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
---------------
You're extremely stupid.
Doesn't your ignorance embarras you?
Of course not, YOU'RE TOO IGNORANT!!
Steve




--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"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.)

And this is a perfect example of the anti-spanking zealotS' logic! :-)

Doan
------------
You're the one who's illogical.
Force is legitimate to stop illicit force.
Steve

And war is peace and peace is war! :-)

Doan

Doan wrote:

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
---------------------
You're the one who's full of ****!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"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.

And what are the results of this philosophy? Do the students learned
more? Do the schools no longer need cops nor metal detectors?

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.

What if the children don't want to clean it up?

Doan
-------------
If you don't abuse them, they don't suffer your kind of emotional
and motivational distortion, and they naturally want to be nice
to people who have been nice to THEM!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Lesa wrote:


"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.

And what are the results of this philosophy? Do the students learned
more? Do the schools no longer need cops nor metal detectors?

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.

What if the children don't want to clean it up?

Doan

Quite honeslty this in not something I've encountered on more than a very
very infrequent basis. It is understood that taking responsiblity for one's
actions is expected, and I've found that children will what you expect of
them. If you expect that a child will act in a cooperative manner, they do
so. If you expect that a child will constantly rebel and refuse to do what
is required, they do this as well. On those rare occasions where a child
would not want to clean up, all that is necessary is disussing with the
child that you understand that they don't want to do this now, but that it
needs to be done and you would appreciate their taking care of it -- neve
rhad a problem beyond that.

Good for you! You seem to have figured out what work with your kids.
---------------
It works with ALL kids, asshole!


The
problem I have with this is when you try to generalize it to everyone.
----------------
The only reason YOUR sort of emotionally distorted personality
can't make it work is NOT because of YOUR children, but because
of YOU, you're a ****ing raving abusive paranoid!


As
you acknowledged, it didn't work 100% of the times even with your own
kids!
----------------
She never said that, asshole liar!
She told you what to do!


Imagine a single-mom having to catch a bus to work in the morning
and uncooperating child that don't want to go to daycare that day.
--------------------
You support her till the child is old enough to go to school.
You provide a society that understands such things.

If your society doesn't do that then the society is abusive,
and she is excused for any crime she has to commit for her kid.


What are the consequences in this case?
Theory is nice, but reality is what really bites!
Doan
----------------------
As long as you persist in abuse, you will fail as a parent.
Steve

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

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
---------------
You're extremely stupid.
Doesn't your ignorance embarras you?
Of course not, YOU'RE TOO IGNORANT!!
Steve

LOL! And you are a "never-spanked" kid with "****" oozing out of his
mouth!

Doan

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

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
---------------------
You're the one who's full of ****!
Steve

Then how did it get to your mouth? :-)

Doan