The Dumbest Claim of the Month

devils_advocate wrote:
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?

devils_advocate wrote:
Do you read?

Yes.

Your next brilliant rebuttal....?