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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
: But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're : positive that we have something that will work better in the real world, : with real parents and real children, would be foolish. Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in thousands of families. Chris |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
: In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
[snip] : But by and large, the system works. I beg to differ. Punishment is the most heavily overrated child discipline technique. I posted an article by Gordon the other day about workshops he has led, inviting participants to list the ways they reacted to punitive authoritarian control as children. Virtually none of the reactions were desirable. Which of the reactions listed did you engage in as a child, Nathan? Note that I don't ask if you engaged in some of them because I know you did - we all did. By and large, a system with this many side effects, and with some such side effects on the list manifesting themselves in every child raised under it, doesn't "work" very well at all. Chris |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: From the thomas gordon's website: "Reviews of Research of the P.E.T. Course There have been two extensive reviews of P.E.T. course evaluation studies. The first, by Ronald Levant of Boston University, reviewed 23 different studies. The author concluded that many of the studies had methodological discrepancies. Nevertheless, out of a total of 149 comparisons between P.E.T. and control groups or alternative programs, 32% favored P.E.T., 11% favored the alternative group, and 57% found no significant differences." --------------------------------- All this means is the for most purposes, programs similar to this are simularly effective, so you're lying like the **** you always are. And the **** is coming out of your mouth again! :-) The point here is not blindly believe to any book or philosoply but learn and filter out what is applicable to you and what is not. Hey, even Dobson recommended Thomas Gordon. :-) Doan ------------------------------------ No, you vicious ****, again what you're trying to pass off is the individualized permission to "hey, if you think for a moment that PET doesn't work "for you" just shuck it and start hitting again!", which is nothing more than your usual excuse for your violent anti-child perversion!! Steve Nope! I just don't blindly believe the "experts" nor do I believe that INFANTICIDE is ok! But I do believe and have proof that your mouth is FULL OF ****! ;-) Doan |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On 9 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:
In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote: : But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're : positive that we have something that will work better in the real world, : with real parents and real children, would be foolish. Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in thousands of families. Ah! I just love the logic. :-) Isn't this the same argument that you don't like about spanking? Afterall, spanking has been used for thousands of years and BILLIONS of families. Doan |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Kane" wrote in message om... On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:41:06 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay" wrote: The more I think about this exercise, the more it looks like something deliberately contrived to generate a particular emotional reaction. You are correct. That IS the point. To explore the actual experiences of people, not create, as you seem to be doing below, move away from the real and into the theoretical. To teach someone about how others experience things it is useful to point out their own experiences that may be similar. An objective analysis Again, a jump away from the point of training people to use and develop their capacity for empathy. PET is based on empathy as ONE of its principles. There are others of course. I view empathay as both extremely valuable and potentially dangerous. Without empathy, true objectivity is impossible because a person doesn't really understand the consequences of an action if he can't empathize with those who will be affected by those consequences. But when empathy is overly focused on one particular aspect of a situation, causing other aspects of the situation to be ignored or given less weight than they deserve, that excessive focus can be extremely dangerous. ---------------------- Empathy is irrelevant except that it might cause people to be fairly given their freedom, such as children. Yes, it is valuable for parents to empathize with how their children are likely to feel about assertion of parental authority, and to understand how their children might react. But parents also have to take a larger and longer view, to consider (and empathize with) the consequences if they fail to exert their authority. What will it do to the child's future if they do not intervene? What dangers will the child's behavior present to the child or to others? How would their child's behavior affect other children, both now and in the future? And, for that matter, how would their child's behavior affect them (the parents)? ------------------------------------ Nonsense, either the child harms others criminally, as in the case of an adult criminal, or else they do what is within their right, just as an adult might. If they are within their rights as an adult, then you have NO right to interfere! The first thing a productive person's actions MUST be is THEIR OWN and VOLUNTARY, or you have produced a time-bomb that will turn on you and the rest of society!! As long as a child remains within their rights, you have NO right to interfere! As I said, parents need to empathize. But if they get so caught up in empathizing with one aspect of the overall situation that they ignore other aspects, they are likely to make worse choices than they would if they empathize but also look at the overall picture objectively. I view empathy as a part of objectivity, not a replacement for it. -------------------------- It's NOT either your place OR your right, to interfere with the lives of children if they do not want you to, unless the child has become criminal toward others and committed crimes that adults would be punished for. NOT EVEN IF YOU'RE THEIR PARENT!!!! I assume you're aware that people with agendas frequently manipulate their choice of what information to present and how to present it in order to make their viewpoint look as strong as possible. My concern is that Dr. Gordon seems to be doing that here, calling attention to what can go wrong without encouraging people to examine the entire context. To the extent that he includes the possibility of children's reacting by behaving at all, he portrays it in a negative light ("Being submissive, conforming, complying; being dutiful, docile, apple-polishing, being a goody-goody, teacher's pet"). ------------------ Kids who are well-treated do actually happen to really like, love, and appreciate the help of the people who treat them well, their teachers and others, just as lond as they are not coerced! So the exercise seems aimed more at causing people to form a negative opinion of the use of authority ----------------- That *IS* the effect of the assumption of illicit authority, such as that used against children which would NOT and could NOT be used in the same manner upon adults without a revolution!! than at causing them to objectively evaluate how the risks and benefits of using authority balance against each other. ---------------------- There is no such balance, coercing others always results in evil, because you cannot show me a way in which you can interefere in my life and coerce me that I will not wish quite naturally to kill you for, and if it continued, I would indeed kill you quite dead!!! The problem in this society is that the risk/benefit of punishment is rarely even looked at, or if done, because of long taught, conditioned, societal values, the risk will be rated low and the benefits relatively high for punishment. I'm inclined to strongly agree that society (or at least a very large part of it) tends to underestimate the risks and overestimate the effectiveness. But I think Dr. Gordon's article errs in the opposite direction. -------------------------- No, he finally says it all and gets it right! People cannot be coerced and bullied as children or else their chief motiavation toward all authority when they are grown will be to wish to destroy it, even if it is duly and democratically constituted. The unchallenged belief in punishment as a way of controlling relationships has consequences we see around us all the time. Divorce rates, school dropout rates, crime rates, failures in international diplomacy, job failures. This accusation has some validity, but it ignores other, more important causes. ------------------------------------- Nope, it doesn't. You have a sick neurotic need to find some, any justification for hitting people smaller than you if they don't obey you, and that is nothing but a coward's diseased mental condition!! It means you're insecure and immature and can't mind your own ****ing business and that you'd best off find a better "hobby" than ****ing with people that way!! It seems to me that the biggest factor in the divorce rate is that we as a society have largely replaced, "for better, or for worse... til death do you part" with "until you get tired of that person or find someone you'd rather be with." -------------- There's absolutely NO reason for ANYONE to live with someone they can't love any longer than they can stand to. Nobody but insane rapists, delusional stalkers, family annihilators, and wife and child batterers and child mnolestors think otherwise. That kind of thinking is a mental illness! Yes, situations where spouses' desire to punish each other drives them farther apart are a contributing factor. But I think lack of commitment - both on a personal level and as part of the legal concept of what marriage is - is the deeper problem. (And I would point out that society's belief in punishment is probably weaker now than it was before the divorce rate started skyrocketing, not stronger.) --------------------------- People started divorcing the people whose guts they hated as soon as it became legally and socially acceptible to do so in their social circle, and some of it is only just now happening. The trends for divorce, and as well for marriage in these age groups where the divorce rate first skyrocketed shows they are now receding and leaving behind new marriages of friendship in their wake, replacing the old power-oriented bully-victim marriages of the 40's and 50's!! It wasn't a "liberal" or a "permissive" upbringing, because those who brought them up *WERE* rightists, and WERE the very ones getting divorces, and NOT their much more liberal kids! But if families could (and would) choose schools that were a better fit for their children, and if children who are considering dropping out had the option of changing to a type of school that fit their needs and desires better instead, that would deal with the problem a whole lot closer to its source. ------------------------------- If you want good schools, make yours better! You don't even have any RIGHT to a school that is better than your society provides! SO PROVIDE, YOU STINGY RIGHTIST FREAK!! Portraying the crime rate as a result of excessive belief in punishment when the things criminals went through as children are so disproportionately likely to involve a lot more than just punishment is highly misleading. ----------------------------------- No it isn't, EVERY book on criminology for the last HUNDRED YEARS has said that inmate/patient case studies show that ALL criminality can be traced to child abuse AT OR BELOW the level of illegality!! I'm not trying to say that "the unchallenged belief in punishment" doesn't cause problems in all of these areas. A lot of people do seriously overestimate how much punishment can accomplish and underestimate the importance of other things. But I think you're painting a highly misleading picture when you blame belief in punishment for issues that have other important causes and contributing factors. ---------------------------------- Punishment for ANYTHING BUT absolute criminality NEVER accomplishes ANY GOOD, so stop trying to justify it to your sick self!! And even so, we don't even hit imprisoned criminals!! Steve |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: There is a difference between a "punitive" parent or teacher and one who occasionally makes reasonable use of punishment. --------------------- Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a child's actions. I won't quote your whole message, but I find your faith in your own infallibility both obnoxious and insulting --------------- Tough **** you abusive sicko. - especially when you try to tell me I'm wrong about my own life just because my reactions don't fit your prejudice. --------------- Tough ****! I don't need any supposed "prejudice". I'M RIGHT because I know what people think inside! You know the same Truth inside, but you're too ****ing stupid and frightened to admit it! That reflects a degree of prejudice that would probably make a brick wall easier to have an intelligent debate with. I doubt that you would be any more likely than a wall to even consider changing your mind, and at least a wall wouldn't insult me along the way. ------------------- In other words, you're ****-out of reason and logic. Steve |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nope. Wrong is wrong. It is wrong to punish a child for anything that is not criminal, that would be his right to do is he were an adult, namely any circumstance in which you want to control a child's actions. I think I'll respond to this point after all, if only for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested in the issue. ------------------------------- You already did, sicko! Adults face consequences for far more than just criminal offenses. For example, an adult who is obnoxious to his boss or is unwilling to do his job can generally expect to get fired. That, in turn, can result being unable to buy food, pay the rent, and so forth - especially if a person keeps being obnoxious or lazy and getting fired. ---------------------------------- Irrelevant, people who can't handle variation in human presentation need to be removed from power and held up to ridicule. Failing to kotow to royalty used to be a hanging offense, but these thieving parasitic rich *******s need to be knocked the **** off their stools and told that the Democracy will run NOT merely government now, but also the economic system, and to serve everyone, not merely them and their 8 vacations a year! The idea of firing children from their "job" of being their parents' children because they behave obnoxiously, or because they refuse to do a reasonable share of work around the house, or some such would be completely impractical - not to mention reprehensible in the eyes of most civilized people. ------------------------ It's *NOT* their ****ing job, asswipe, it's THEIR ****ING HOME! They have the right to do what they want AT HOME, DON'T YOU, ASSHOLE??? Well so do they, they inherited THEIR share of their parents home by having been dragged into existence against their inmformed consent and express permission, and those who did this owe them a residence and their fair share of their estate, as well as support till they can stand on their own, in THEIR good time!!! And as far as "cleaning their room" or what-not, THEY OWN IT, they can do as they please till they change their mind and decide to do differently! Therefore, parents are given authority to punish children in other ways that are far less damaging than throwing the children out on the street would be. -------------------------- Nope, that's theft and assault, and for it they should be publically beaten or their children should burn their ****ing house down with THEM IN IT! In other cases, actions that parents punish children for involve a danger to the child. I suppose one could argue that if a five-year-old girl wants to go wandering through a dangerous part of town alone at night, it is her life at stake and thus should be her choice. ----------------------- No 5 year old wants to die, and they know about death. If they step into traffic they don't know, amd rescuing them or younger kids is perfectly reasonable. Even pushing an adult back who has stepped in front of a car or bus is reasonable, even if you have to lay hands on them, but them you let go and apologize and explain. Well that is what you do for children, you do NOT try to shame or bully them, you educate them, that is your obligation, but abuse of their rights is NOT your right! But most people take the view that a five-year-old girl doesn't understand the risks well enough to be ready to make that choice for herself. Therefore, we give parents authority to make and enforce rules to protect their children's safety. ------------------ You obviously don't have kids, a 5 year old is terrified of the street. Do some parents abuse their power? Yes. Do some parents do too much threatening and not enough discussing and explaining and looking for compromises and alternatives? Yes. ------------------- Don't EVEN claim that there aren't LOTS of us who haven't told you how to do it a LOT better, but you won't listen because you're abusive sickos who are still trying to get "one-up" in an adult-child situation, even if you're trying now from the WRONG SIDE OF IT to try to assauge your emotional hurt from when YOU were a child! That IS why parents hit children, because they think they, like THEIR parents, can GET AWAY WITH IT, and they have enormous hurt from it that they feel they can only exorcize by finally it being THEM WHO GETS TO DO THE HITTING!! In other words, it's all a form of disgusting fraternity HAZING!! But by and large, the system works. -------------------- That is often claimed as long as the current methods aren't actually killing off children, but only just crippling them emotionally and psychologically. Newsflash: That's NOT what is called "working"!!! And throwing it out before we're positive that we have something that will work better in the real world, with real parents and real children, would be foolish. To the best of my knowledge, even societies that seek to abolish corporal punishment invariably allow other forms of punishment. Nathan ------------------ Nonsense, they haven't so far, Steve |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Doan wrote:
And the **** is coming out of my mouth again! :-) But I do believe and have proof that my mouth is FULL OF ****! ;-) Doan ---------------------- I wouldn't doubt it. Steve |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Doan wrote:
On 9 Jun 2004, Chris wrote: In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote: : But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're : positive that we have something that will work better in the real world, : with real parents and real children, would be foolish. Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in thousands of families. Ah! I just love the logic. :-) Isn't this the same argument that you don't like about spanking? Afterall, spanking has been used for thousands of years and BILLIONS of families. Doan ---------------- LIAR! No it hasn't, except as an aberration, and evil act everyone hated you for. Most tribal peoples leave their kids the hell alone unless they are in good humor, and they NEVER hit them for ANY reason!! Steve |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:23:03 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 9 Jun 2004, Chris wrote: In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote: : But by and large, the system works. And throwing it out before we're : positive that we have something that will work better in the real world, : with real parents and real children, would be foolish. Once again, Nathan, you appear to be talking about win/win cooperative nonpunitive discipline as if it were some sort of new untested concept rather than a set of approaches to dealing with conflict in the parent/child relationship developed decades ago and used successfully in thousands of families. Ah! I just love the logic. :-) Isn't this the same argument that you don't like about spanking? Afterall, spanking has been used for thousands of years and BILLIONS of families. Sorry. Not the same logic at all. And no, that's not the argument he used either. You overlooked the word "successfully." That's the key. If all you have is a hammer ever problem looks like a nail. Some parents have learned about other ways to solve problems than using a hammer. And in fact, we now drive nails, or make fastenings with many more things than hammers and nails. We've even learned how to line up molecules so materials will bond to each other without "spanking" them. In other words. Parents are improving. Are you against improving? Improvement can save a lot of cat's-asses in good wood, avoid a lot of smashed fingers, and reduce production of a lot of, dare I say it? Injured children. Doan Not hitting, and doing other things instead seems to be too hard for some. Probably they should think about getting a pet rock. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 16th 04 09:15 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 105 | November 30th 03 05:48 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Spanking | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |