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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, toto wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:40:18 -0800, Doan wrote: "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than physical punishment." Again, not a method I would reccommend. Verbal conflict resolution and expressing anger in words does not have to be punitive. Discipline is teaching. It may involve punishment, but that is the least effective way to teach. Note that applied behavioral analysis which is a method used in teaching autistic children and which is the only method that has had much success began with the use of many aversives and has evolved into a system which relies almost exclusively on rewards (external ones primarily with autistic children, but still rewards nonetheless, not punishments). Even with the extreme behavioral problems which many of these children present, rewards for good behavior have been found to be more effective than trying to extinguish the bad behavior with punishments. Children whose *bad* behaviors don't get them attention are the kids whose bad behavior generally goes away. Punishing them is giving them attention when they misbehave and so it does not help them to learn *not* to misbehave. Why does it has to be either/or? Where is that being advocated? You spanking advocates scream long and loud if it looks like we are saying you "only" spank...when in fact we aren't saying that. Why would Dorothy's statement require there be no other alternatives? You take advantage, unethically, of the impossibility to list encyclopedic inclusing of every alternative when someone discusses an issuse. How about growing up and actually debating? Why not combine the two? Why punish if you can accomplish the goal with reward? Often, with children, the reward lies in the child gaining knowledge. In fact the most effective "teaching" from both child and teacher/parent perspective, often goes unnoticed, until an assessment is done of prior "work." It's actually easy, not hard. And are you endorsing "reward" now? There is a difference between "M&Ms" and intrinsic sense of accomplishment that feels good. Most teachers, and most parents, for that matter, that do not feel a need for punishment, know to and gradually decrease the "M&Ms," and incorporate self rewarding as the goal for learning. In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards" involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The parent is there to facilitate, not "teach." Doan Kane -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, toto wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-" wrote: The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that was printed previously? Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane. Kane is just having problem with his English. ;-) This study is available through my library and it is classified as Level 1, which it said: No, my English is just fine. It's your presumptions of meaning, that has been your down fall and the exposure of your lying ways for so long, that is your problem with this statement. I, as well as many other college students, have no problem with it. It was clear! "Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost through this Web site " He misunderstood it to mean that my library has been providing this study in electronic format SINCE 1993. What it actually mean is only materials from 1993 on are available in electronic format. Maybe you can translate it into SIMPLE ENGLISH for him. ;-) Doan No Doan, normal english would see the statement, "... Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost through this Web site," as either possibility. Just barely. But mostly, that all documents were available electronically from after 1993. It does not say clearly that those documents produced prior to 93 aren't available in electronic format. In fact, it really doesn't say it all. You may know that's true, but a reader could not. If your claim were true it would be worded: "documents produced prior to 1993." It doesn't. Are you sure that no Level 1 library documents created prior to 1993 are available now in electronic format? You can do your own research. Come on, show us your "formidable research skill"! ;-) It would say, "and, documents created since 1993, in electronic format;" Please explain why you invited me to access the document in electronic form by clicking a link (but of course supplied no link)? Why would I "invited" you? You said you already have the study and that it is only available from Dr. Embry? Were you lying or just "mistaken"? Doan, having information that others are not privy to doesn't prove your brilliance, but your crowing over it and using it to harass proves something. Now that we have cleared that up, did you have a point? Yes! It, once again, just PROVED how stupid you are! ;-) Are you going to deliver copies to those you keep offering them to? And why can't they, like you invited me to do, simply access that link you are withholding, and let them download it? And why is it you have only a paper copy? And why did you insist that poor "Alina" cover the postage? And you never just sent it to her anyway? Free? Like I did? After you drug your heels? Well, she was supposed to "con" a copy from you and send it to me, remember? ;-) And why, if you've had it have you been sending people to other sources, some expensive rather than offering it yourself, before this? And why did you tell everybody that it is only available from Dr. Embry? I see you finally got around to it. But obviously your compulsion to harass extends even to those you say you wish to help. Or you didn't have it. And were running a bluff. Could that be it? 0:- Or it could be you! ;-) Why withhold, Doan. A little anal retentive, maybe? Hypocrit! ;-) Could it be your parents are still beating your butt? Could it be that your mom is still proud of you calling other woman "smelly-****"? ;-) Doan |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: toto wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-" wrote: The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that was printed previously? Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane. No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993. Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH? Sure. "Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost through this Web site " What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE! So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy? Now when did I do that? You are having problem with your English again. ;-) Stupid asshole. Yes, that's you! ;-) Doan |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:58:43 -0800, Doan wrote:
Why does it has to be either/or? Why not combine the two? And are you endorsing "reward" now? I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than punishment. They are not as effective as positive parenting. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:44:02 -0800, "0:-"
wrote: In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards" involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The parent is there to facilitate, not "teach." And, we can keep that passion for learning in older children. We just need to stop believing that we must *control* them and realize that they want to learn and can learn if we *allow* it. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, toto wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:58:43 -0800, Doan wrote: Why does it has to be either/or? Why not combine the two? And are you endorsing "reward" now? I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than punishment. So you endorse things that are "effective"? BTW, reward and punishment are two sides of the same coin. It is in the way they are applied. They are not as effective as positive parenting. But they are effective, nevertheless. Doan |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, toto wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:44:02 -0800, "0:-" wrote: In fact the vast majority of early learning has NO extrinsic "rewards" involved. The baby just learns because of the drive to. Infant Passion for Learning. I've seen it in every child I've ever dealt with. The parent is there to facilitate, not "teach." And, we can keep that passion for learning in older children. We just need to stop believing that we must *control* them and realize that they want to learn and can learn if we *allow* it. Theory is nice, Dorothy. It's when the rubber hits the road, so to speak, is when the whole thing breaks apart. Just look at the history of public education; lots of theory but, in the end, we are failing our kids miserably! Doan |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, toto wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:52:21 -0600, Carlson LaVonne wrote: Dorothy, And the other thing I'd like to add is the age and developmental level of the child. I've had parents write about toddlers and young preschoolers entering the street. Parent should do everything possible to prevent street entry, but with these tiny children, keeping them safe is their parents' or caregivers' responsibility. The best way to keep a toddler and a young preschooler from entering the street alone is to not allow the action to occur. And this doesn't mean spanking, nagging, reprimanding, or reasoning. This means practicing prevention. LaVonne Of course it does, LaVonne. As far as I know no one who advocates not spanking has advocated scolding, nagging or reprimanding as a method of discipline for anything at all though these things do occur when parents are stressed or when they don't know what other options to use instead of spanking. Then you haven't paying attention to the anti-spanking zealotS, Dorothy? Do you wonder what Swedish parents do as alternatives to spanking? You wouldn't be presuming that all or most Swedish parents do the same thing would you? Not ALL, but MOST! ;-) Then why did you not say so, rather than "wonder what Swedish parents do as alternatives to spanking?" "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. Obviously then your former arguments insinuating that Swedish parents yell at their children instead of spanking sort of falls on it's ass. Just like you. Or are you arguing that Swedish parents use many alternatives to spanking? If so, then you are agreeing with the anti spanking argument. Isn't that nice? The method most commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Yep. So? That doesn't say that all conflicts or teaching is anger based. Parents insist that discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, "May." or that yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. "May be." Still, many point out that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than physical punishment." Now, it doesn't said ALL, does it? Having problem with your English again? ;-) Yep. But you work very hard to leave the impression that Swedish parents have no alternatives to spanking but yelling at their children. Or did you not mean that? Are you now arguing for alternatives to spanking? Do you wonder what anti-spanking zealotS like Dr. Robert Fathman did to his kids as alternative to spanking? Why would she "wonder" since it was posted her in plain English just a few posts ago? And Dorothy just posted (on this post, in fact), that "I know of no one"! Why are you so STUPID? ;-) Here is what she said, and it says nothing about punishing by car washing: "As far as I know no one who advocates not spanking has advocated scolding, nagging or reprimanding as a method of discipline for anything at all though these things do occur when parents are stressed or when they don't know what other options to use instead of spanking. " Car washing equates to "scolding, nagging or reprimanding" in what way? You might want to go back and read the WHOLE part about Robert Fathman and the way he dealt with his kids. Do you even read what you posted??? Doan "Why are you so STUPID? ;-)"? I'm not. Why did you miss what you did and reference Dr. Robert Fathman? Don't you pay attention to what you are saying? Or did he say, anywhere, "scold, nag or reprimand your child?" LOL! Did you, STUPID? Doan |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:21:38 -0800, Doan wrote:
I don't endorse rewards. They are, however, much more effective than punishment. So you endorse things that are "effective"? BTW, reward and punishment are two sides of the same coin. It is in the way they are applied. They are not as effective as positive parenting. But they are effective, nevertheless. Rewards and punishments are effective *only* in the short term. Since most parents want to bring up ethical children who self-regulate and since external rewards and punishment demotivate children in learning this, they are not effective in the long term to achieve parenting goals. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
The Embry Study: What it actually said.
Doan wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 17 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: toto wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:26:47 -0800, "0:-" wrote: The Embry study was done in 1981. The link said: "since 1993, in R R R ...dummy boy, can you put something into an electronic format that was printed previously? Well, you are asking him to scan a 140 page document, Kane. No, what he said is that it's been available electronically since 1993. Are you sure that you understand ENGLISH? Sure. "Level: 1 - Reproducible in paper and microfiche; and, since 1993, in electronic format; materials issued from January 1993 - July 2004 are now available at no cost through this Web site " What it meant is that material since 1993 are available in electronic format. Learn to use your brain and STOP BEING SUCH A STUPID ASSHOLE! So, why did you invite me to find the link and download a copy? Now when did I do that? You are having problem with your English again. ;-) 2/15/2006 4:21 PM Kane: "Or were you mistaken about the electronic availability you copied and pasted?" Doan: "LOL! Why don't you try to get an electronic copy for everyone? Try it!" Is that not an invitation to get an electronic copy? Stupid asshole. Yes, that's you! ;-) No, Doan, it's you. You run a string of lies, avoid answering questions while demanding others do so. Doan You claimed, for instance, that I lied about the issue of spanking increasing street entries. Yet I never said where the information came from. Since I refused to tell you where that information comes from, you insisted I was claiming it was from the study we were discussing. I made NO such claim. Yet you claim I'm lying. That makes you a liar. And this is the pattern you've followed with myself and other posters for years. You decide for people what they have said and mean, and refuse to accept when they clarify if they did not give full information first time around. You call them liars, or mistaken, or failures if they do no provide encyclopedic information in each sentence they post. You take single sentences out of context, when the answer to your lying accusation is right there a line or two later, sometimes even in the very next sentence. You continue, for instance, to use my ad hom about a fithly evil poster that advocated in favor of beating children with belts, suspended naked for the church to whale on. You do this after I've pointed out my reason for using it.........AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION whether or not you support her in her advocacy of this kind of treatment of children. That makes you a liar, Doan, or a supporter of her advocacy of child beating. Take you pick from the above. YOu challenge people to debate, claiming they are afraid to, when in fact your "debate" consists of cherry picking commentary by authors that do not go to the objective of their experiment or study; making claims that are not factual. Your claim of 13 being a small sample, for instance, and ignoring that it was from an experiment, not a survey study. Experiments can use small or large samples. YOU could not prove in this one that the sample size did in fact negate the findings. You are dishonest. And you are a child with a problem. I think it's related to spanking. And you lie when you claim again, as you did recently, that you do not "tell parents to spank." Arguments in support of spanking and against nonspanking is exactly. Honest people freely admit their biases. I for instance intend to influence people not to spank. And I've done it successfully many times since 1976. I have no idea if you've convinced anyone to spank, but you sure work hard at it. You are a liar. And not over hairsplitting the meaning of some word, or what you might have meant, but specifically for your long campaign here to support people like Dobson and his views, and your attacks on any and every argument for not spanking. Stop pretending to be something you are not. It makes you look as dishonest as you are. Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Classic Droan was R R R R, should I DOUBLE DARE HIM? ..was... LaVonne | Kane | Spanking | 0 | April 17th 04 07:13 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Foster Parents | 31 | December 7th 03 03:01 AM |