A Little Bedtime Story

wrote:
#1. The child was left unattended in a

If the story is true, that was, as is so often the case in abuse, the
PARENT'S fault, not the child's.

car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses.

If the story is true, he got that ... the hard way.

#3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.

Spankers would have you believe children of this age know what they are
doing, in adult reasoning terms, and they should be spanked for their
actions.

Or they believe that raising a child is equivalent to training animals.
And that operant conditioning is appropriate.

They forget, of course, that the child this young, and even up to age
six, is highly unlikely to make the abstract connection from their
behavior to the application of pain. The "behavior" is lost to the
child both because it's not yet possible (brain development stages) and
because the trauma refocuses the event on the SOURCE OF THE PAIN...the
father. That is what the child "gets," not that she poked holes in the
seat cover.

Children will believe, as this little girl did (if the story is true)
that the CAUSE of the loss of her hand was NOT her action, but her
father's choice to take her hand away. And that there was some vague
"bad girl" involvement assigned to her as a label.

She has the classic disconnect involved in cause and effect reasoning
that is both normal in that age, AND reinforced by pain, whether
physical or psychological. Usually they accompany each other. "...I'll
be a good girl Daddy, can I please have my hand back now?"

This unsophisticated mindset is the rule.

I have, however, seen children this young, when having the result of
their action shown to them, and the parent expressed their own feelings
about the even honestly, catch on, "get it" and be truly remorseful and
NOT do that action again.

I doubt the little girl in this story though, ever poked holes in
seating every again, so of course, both methods work...but one has just
a tiny bit of risk to it.

Guess which.

M.E.

Kane

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called. So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

AF

Charles:
It's a fiction, a propaganda ploy.

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called. So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

How do you know CPS wasn't called?

AF

Greegor wrote:
Charles:
It's a fiction, a propaganda ploy.

Ah, you did as I requested and contacted the owners of the website and
they admitted they lied then?

By the way, do you agree with Doan that CPS wasn't called?

How do you know that?

How do you know when the event took place, and whether or not mandatory
reporting was in place back then?

You seem to be saying the story is a lie, but you support your claim
with lies. Attempts to mislead, and fact deficient rhetoric.

When it comes to propaganda ploys you seem very ready to overlook any
that support your biases. Why is that I wonder?

Kane

On 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called. So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

How do you know CPS wasn't called?

Where in the story did you see CPS was called?

AF

Doan wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called.

Where does it say CPS wasn't called?

So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

You don't know the date of the incident, or the location. And you don't
know if CPS was or wasn't called.

How do you know CPS wasn't called?

Where in the story did you see CPS was called?

Where did you see that CPS wasn't called?

I also noticed the police weren't mentioned. Nor the nurses that helped
treat the child. Nor the color of the car, and nothing about the wife.

We do not know if CPS was called or not, so the validity of the story is
neither proved nor disproved by your statement concerning CPS.

Your logic continues to amaze, to say the least. 0;-]

There is one way to determine the stories authenticity, and you refuse
to follow up. Tsk.


AF

On 13 Oct 2006, Greegor wrote:

Charles:
It's a fiction, a propaganda ploy.

It's a ethical LIE! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called.

Where does it say CPS wasn't called?

Where does it say CPS was called?

So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

You don't know the date of the incident, or the location. And you don't
know if CPS was or wasn't called.

Exactly!

How do you know CPS wasn't called?

Where in the story did you see CPS was called?

Where did you see that CPS wasn't called?

Where did you see that CPS was called?

I also noticed the police weren't mentioned. Nor the nurses that helped
treat the child. Nor the color of the car, and nothing about the wife.

Exactly!

We do not know if CPS was called or not, so the validity of the story is
neither proved nor disproved by your statement concerning CPS.

Exactly!

Your logic continues to amaze, to say the least. 0;-]

Hihihi! You are the anti-spanking ZealotS!

There is one way to determine the stories authenticity, and you refuse
to follow up. Tsk.

And you did? ;-)

AF

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 13 Oct 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 wrote:

#1. The child was left unattended in a
car. #2. The father needs some anger-
management courses. #3.Yes, it coud have been handled better. If you
have to spank, you do it for a worse offense, and
on the behind. Not on a small hand.


And #4. CPS wasn't called.

Where does it say CPS wasn't called?

Where does it say CPS was called?

So much for Mandatory Reporting! ;-)

You don't know the date of the incident, or the location. And you don't
know if CPS was or wasn't called.

Exactly!

Relevance please. You seem to have forgotten the premise. It's in the
Subject field.

How do you know CPS wasn't called?

Where in the story did you see CPS was called?

Where did you see that CPS wasn't called?

Where did you see that CPS was called?

I didn't. Which, since you can't show where they weren't, makes your
question superfluous.

I also noticed the police weren't mentioned. Nor the nurses that helped
treat the child. Nor the color of the car, and nothing about the wife.

Exactly!

Yep. But would you say there was no nurse, or no wife and mother?

Hence, even without direct mention of CPS or the Police, you cannot say
they were contacted. This wasn't a story about child abuse laws
enforcement.

We do not know if CPS was called or not, so the validity of the story is
neither proved nor disproved by your statement concerning CPS.

Exactly!

Yep. CPS is not an issue in this story.

Your logic continues to amaze, to say the least. 0;-]

Hihihi! You are the anti-spanking ZealotS!

Your logic, nevertheless, still continues to amaze me. Either you are
stupid, and a liar, or just a stupid liar.

There is one way to determine the stories authenticity, and you refuse
to follow up. Tsk.

And you did? ;-)

No reason to. It's in the Subject. I made clear I don't know.

Do you never say anything are not sure of the facts? Especially when
you point out you don't know the facts?

AF

You haven't proven this story is untrue. I haven't said it was true.

You made the assertive statement, so back it up.

0:-