A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Parenting Without Punishing"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 16th 04, 10:17 PM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

jitney wrote:

The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** [mindless etc]

---------------------
We have a brainwashed little rightist pin-head who is terrified of
intelligence and intellectualism, ladies and gentlemen!!


If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are
inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held
accountable.

-----------------------
Sure, *IF* that were the result, except IT ISN'T!!

INSTEAD: Criminals come FROM being punished!!

We discovered that you Rightist **** JUST WANT TO HURT CHILDREN
AS A DEFECT OF YOUR CHARACTER, it doesn't actually HELP kids AT
ALL, IN FACT IT DAMAGES THEM!!


People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far
more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their
hellion brats

-------------------------
Nope, NOT OURS! YOURS!! Your abuse of children *IS* what makes
them rebellious and criminal, and drug-user, and every other
thing you can think of!


-Jitney

-----------
Wake the **** up, Jitney, you were named after a ****ing TAXI!
Steve
  #12  
Old June 16th 04, 11:18 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"


I wouldn't this far. The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind
of information is useful. Like my father said, it's always better
to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius.
What get to me is the blind-faith into something just because it
sound nice or because some so-called "expert" said so. See the current
hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-)

Doan

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote:

The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


  #13  
Old June 17th 04, 12:26 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

----- 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.

The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind
of information is useful.


"Open minded?" Come on, Droaner. You can't mean you. All you listen to
is pro spanking propaganda. You've been posting it here for years.

Like my father said, it's always better
to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius.


Ah, but learning something from a genius might be even better. I
suspect he said this right after he whallopped your ass good.

Not that his saying leave out the chance to learn anything from anyone
not an idiot. So much for the logic he taught you...but then we've
known this about you all along.

What get to me is the blind-faith


Gosh, I don't recall Jerry Alborn going on blind faith. And I
certainly know I didn't. I began to study this issue earnestly in
1954. I've hardly let up since. In fact I came from the mindset that
pain and force were acceptable ways of teaching people.

However, I fell into a very severe case of questioning all things I
"thought" were right. You might try it sometime. You are the ones that
rely on what you think is "thought" when it's nothing but operant
conditioning. Real thinking is hard work. And it doesn't mean, as you
continually imply, just learing new information.

into something just because it
sound nice


I'm sure to many CP sounds very "nice" as it fits their compulsive
mental processing patterns. Common thinking errors.

or because some so-called "expert" said so.


Oh, I don't think some of those "so-called 'expert'" folks can hold a
candle to your expert, the child development specialist that can whip
a dachsund single handidly and pince small boys by the back of the
neck until they squeal.

So tell us, has CP proven to be better than non CP parenting? If not,
then tell us, if you'll be so kind, what the relative risks of non-cp
parenting are compared to cp parenting.

See the current
hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-)


See the hoopla around operant conditioning back in the fifties. The
education system thought they had classroom behavior whipped. Of
course they forgot that 80% of all learning is by example. I did my
part in hurrying that along.

It's really funny to watch a roomfull of kids doing minimal
appropriations reinforcement of teachers who think they are in charge.

In fact, such conditioning behavior is natural for a child to use in
early childhood, say from 4 or so to around six. If the child hasn't
had his or her development crippled in that stage, you can see the 5
to 11 year old in action learning how to be a human......cooperation
is the name of the game, and so different from the early years, (which
most of you are stuck in because of the brutal childrearing you
suffered that arrested your development) that they have to work pretty
hard at it.

Most of our games and sociable interactions are practices. Now girls
have gotten into sports and are becoming socialized the same ways boys
are. It's very interesting to watch happen.


Doan


You sure are. Ever now and then you post this about the progressive
and vital searching that goes on for better ways for humans to raise
their children.

You forget of course that what has been going on for thousands of
years, in some cultures, is cargo cult "science." They think doing the
same thing over and over again will get the same results and the world
and society better for it.

Oddly, nothing has changed all that much...EXCEPT...societies that
move away from punitive methods of control of citizens tend to move
toward more civil societies. And those that revert to the childhood,
"you touch my truck and I'll bite you hard" mentality reflected in the
story below.

Anyone that cares to look at reality sees in history where it's all
going about child rearing. Frankly if kids were no better with non-cp,
than cp, that, to an honorable person with ethics, would come out as
"why spank then?"

We know why you folks hit, Droaner, and why you lie to yourself with
nonsense such as this below.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience.


See, thinking error, big time. No they aren't. Folks with commonsense
tend to be very open to new ideas and give them due consideration.
They don't dismiss them out of hand as you folks wish to do with
non-cp parenting.

A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.


The careful choosing of analogy is both a science and an art. This guy
missed by a mile. There is NO connection, even remotely, between the
two issues. Unless the teacher was precluded, in teaching reading,
from using a punishment model.

Or a parent
of bad boys,


Ah, now we get down to it. Are bad boys bad by nature, or by training?
Well, I've watch a few hundred raised not only without CP but very
little punishment at all. Whatever exploratory urges they have that
endanger themselves or others the parents had no trouble at all
redirecting...why? Because the children trust the parents NOT to hurt
or MISdirect.

Or are you too stupid to figure out how to direct a child to learn
what he wishes in a non dangerous fashion, faster and better?

after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.


Doesn't compute. Once again misleading. There are plenty of "experts"
who have been quoted in this ng telling her to spank. Why should she
feel guiltly?

Because she knows in some part of her, hidden by her own painfilled
childhood, that using pain on children is wrong morally, and dangerous
for humanity.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.


I agree. We have been saying that for years about spanking proponents,
especially the experts.

You folks spend about all your debating time trying to refute studies
that show spanking to be injurious, and can't field an real support
for your position, outside of cargo cult support.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)


With 90% of the population being sujected to CP, and probably closer
to 100 being subjected to pointless punishment, I'm sure he had no
fear whatever his blather would be well received.

On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote:

The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears.


On the contrary. Some posters here have put this academician
theorizing (that arrose out of laboratory experiments dating to the
20's) into practice. They have tested it. I certainly did. I know
hundreds of others who have.

It works.

If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior,



Two problems here. One is that much of what parents call "bad
behavior" is either not within the child's control, (tired, sick, lack
of information) or is nature compelled exploritory activity....and is
easily redirected by the parent that thinks instead of hits.

Pain stops learning, and narrows it down to just trust issues. Trust
of the parent. The child learns something alright, but not what I
want them to learn. How to be sneaky. How to be agressive. How to have
relationships empty of trust and full of control struggles.


you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable.


Well, let me put it this way. Go find me the criminals that were not
subjected to CP, and we'll compare notes. I'll give you a hint.
Children that aren't hit rarely end up in jail convicted of a crime.

People that advocate
mindless theories


Sorry, it's your protest that is mindless. You obviously haven't been
here long and read the archives. Considerable minding of this matter
has been done. I've studied it since 1954 or thereabouts.

In fact, for the past few decades, as more and more non-punitive child
care takes over less and less juvinile crime is evident. State after
state has done away with school paddling, for the good. Grades up,
violence down.

And please don't ring up Moore and Bowling for Columbine. That year
was one of the lowest years for in school violent loss of life for
many a year.

like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


Interestingly, in my town there is a group of kids and their families
who go out on a monthly project for a weekend, that is exactly
that....removing graffiti.
Merchants and business and clubs like Kiwanis and Elks provide money
for supplies. I know about half the families. Guess what...they don't
spank their kids.

You may wipe the spittle off your chin now, and challenge me.

Want to see the DOJ/FBI data on junenile crime?

Want to bet the media is behind hyping every think a kid does that can
possibly be construed as bad?

Want to point to the world with it's high prevalence of violent child
upbringing, as we do it here with lots of punishment and spanking and
claim spanking is the reason for "improvement" in the social
condition?

I'm game.

Kane
  #14  
Old June 17th 04, 12:27 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

----- 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.

The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind
of information is useful.


"Open minded?" Come on, Droaner. You can't mean you. All you listen to
is pro spanking propaganda. You've been posting it here for years.

Like my father said, it's always better
to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius.


Ah, but learning something from a genius might be even better. I
suspect he said this right after he whallopped your ass good.

Not that his saying leave out the chance to learn anything from anyone
not an idiot. So much for the logic he taught you...but then we've
known this about you all along.

What get to me is the blind-faith


Gosh, I don't recall Jerry Alborn going on blind faith. And I
certainly know I didn't. I began to study this issue earnestly in
1954. I've hardly let up since. In fact I came from the mindset that
pain and force were acceptable ways of teaching people.

However, I fell into a very severe case of questioning all things I
"thought" were right. You might try it sometime. You are the ones that
rely on what you think is "thought" when it's nothing but operant
conditioning. Real thinking is hard work. And it doesn't mean, as you
continually imply, just learing new information.

into something just because it
sound nice


I'm sure to many CP sounds very "nice" as it fits their compulsive
mental processing patterns. Common thinking errors.

or because some so-called "expert" said so.


Oh, I don't think some of those "so-called 'expert'" folks can hold a
candle to your expert, the child development specialist that can whip
a dachsund single handidly and pince small boys by the back of the
neck until they squeal.

So tell us, has CP proven to be better than non CP parenting? If not,
then tell us, if you'll be so kind, what the relative risks of non-cp
parenting are compared to cp parenting.

See the current
hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-)


See the hoopla around operant conditioning back in the fifties. The
education system thought they had classroom behavior whipped. Of
course they forgot that 80% of all learning is by example. I did my
part in hurrying that along.

It's really funny to watch a roomfull of kids doing minimal
appropriations reinforcement of teachers who think they are in charge.

In fact, such conditioning behavior is natural for a child to use in
early childhood, say from 4 or so to around six. If the child hasn't
had his or her development crippled in that stage, you can see the 5
to 11 year old in action learning how to be a human......cooperation
is the name of the game, and so different from the early years, (which
most of you are stuck in because of the brutal childrearing you
suffered that arrested your development) that they have to work pretty
hard at it.

Most of our games and sociable interactions are practices. Now girls
have gotten into sports and are becoming socialized the same ways boys
are. It's very interesting to watch happen.


Doan


You sure are. Ever now and then you post this about the progressive
and vital searching that goes on for better ways for humans to raise
their children.

You forget of course that what has been going on for thousands of
years, in some cultures, is cargo cult "science." They think doing the
same thing over and over again will get the same results and the world
and society better for it.

Oddly, nothing has changed all that much...EXCEPT...societies that
move away from punitive methods of control of citizens tend to move
toward more civil societies. And those that revert to the childhood,
"you touch my truck and I'll bite you hard" mentality reflected in the
story below.

Anyone that cares to look at reality sees in history where it's all
going about child rearing. Frankly if kids were no better with non-cp,
than cp, that, to an honorable person with ethics, would come out as
"why spank then?"

We know why you folks hit, Droaner, and why you lie to yourself with
nonsense such as this below.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience.


See, thinking error, big time. No they aren't. Folks with commonsense
tend to be very open to new ideas and give them due consideration.
They don't dismiss them out of hand as you folks wish to do with
non-cp parenting.

A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.


The careful choosing of analogy is both a science and an art. This guy
missed by a mile. There is NO connection, even remotely, between the
two issues. Unless the teacher was precluded, in teaching reading,
from using a punishment model.

Or a parent
of bad boys,


Ah, now we get down to it. Are bad boys bad by nature, or by training?
Well, I've watch a few hundred raised not only without CP but very
little punishment at all. Whatever exploratory urges they have that
endanger themselves or others the parents had no trouble at all
redirecting...why? Because the children trust the parents NOT to hurt
or MISdirect.

Or are you too stupid to figure out how to direct a child to learn
what he wishes in a non dangerous fashion, faster and better?

after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.


Doesn't compute. Once again misleading. There are plenty of "experts"
who have been quoted in this ng telling her to spank. Why should she
feel guiltly?

Because she knows in some part of her, hidden by her own painfilled
childhood, that using pain on children is wrong morally, and dangerous
for humanity.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.


I agree. We have been saying that for years about spanking proponents,
especially the experts.

You folks spend about all your debating time trying to refute studies
that show spanking to be injurious, and can't field an real support
for your position, outside of cargo cult support.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)


With 90% of the population being sujected to CP, and probably closer
to 100 being subjected to pointless punishment, I'm sure he had no
fear whatever his blather would be well received.

On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote:

The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears.


On the contrary. Some posters here have put this academician
theorizing (that arrose out of laboratory experiments dating to the
20's) into practice. They have tested it. I certainly did. I know
hundreds of others who have.

It works.

If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior,



Two problems here. One is that much of what parents call "bad
behavior" is either not within the child's control, (tired, sick, lack
of information) or is nature compelled exploritory activity....and is
easily redirected by the parent that thinks instead of hits.

Pain stops learning, and narrows it down to just trust issues. Trust
of the parent. The child learns something alright, but not what I
want them to learn. How to be sneaky. How to be agressive. How to have
relationships empty of trust and full of control struggles.


you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable.


Well, let me put it this way. Go find me the criminals that were not
subjected to CP, and we'll compare notes. I'll give you a hint.
Children that aren't hit rarely end up in jail convicted of a crime.

People that advocate
mindless theories


Sorry, it's your protest that is mindless. You obviously haven't been
here long and read the archives. Considerable minding of this matter
has been done. I've studied it since 1954 or thereabouts.

In fact, for the past few decades, as more and more non-punitive child
care takes over less and less juvinile crime is evident. State after
state has done away with school paddling, for the good. Grades up,
violence down.

And please don't ring up Moore and Bowling for Columbine. That year
was one of the lowest years for in school violent loss of life for
many a year.

like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


Interestingly, in my town there is a group of kids and their families
who go out on a monthly project for a weekend, that is exactly
that....removing graffiti.
Merchants and business and clubs like Kiwanis and Elks provide money
for supplies. I know about half the families. Guess what...they don't
spank their kids.

You may wipe the spittle off your chin now, and challenge me.

Want to see the DOJ/FBI data on junenile crime?

Want to bet the media is behind hyping every thing a kid does that can
possibly be construed as bad?

Want to point to the world with it's high prevalence of violent child
upbringing, as we do it here with lots of punishment and spanking and
claim spanking is the reason for "improvement" in the social
condition?

I'm game.

Kane
  #15  
Old June 17th 04, 02:26 AM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"


"jitney" wrote in message
om...
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


The most important things that parents do to teach their children the
difference between right and wrong are to teach them and to set a good
example. If children understand how bad behavior would harm others, and if
they choose to empathize with others rather than focusing entirely on
themselves, their own consciences will provide a certain amount of
punishment for bad behavior independent of whether they are punished by
adults. For children who love their parents and who want their parents to
think well of them, parental disapproval can also serve as a certain amount
of punishment. And if a child's needs are met, and if parents do a good job
of teaching the child how to find happiness without feeling a need to take
things that don't belong to him or do things that harm others, the child has
lot less reason to want to do things that are wrong.

Imagine two children. One has a strong understanding of how wrong behaviors
will harm others, backed by a parental example of generosity and caring
about others, and his parents actively help him get at least most of what he
wants without having to harm others, but he has no fear of punishment beyond
that of his own conscience and his parents' disapproval unless he commits a
crime. The other child understands how wrong actions harm others far less
well and has parents who set a clearly selfish (and perhaps sometimes
hypocritical) example and care relatively little about the child's needs and
desires, but the child is likely to get spanked hard if he misbehaves - *IF*
he is caught. Which child is more likely to behave well? And, especially,
which child is more likely to behave well in situations where the risk of
being caught is minimal or essentially nonexistent?

I have very little idea of how reliably purely non-punitive parenting
techniques really work, and while people like Chris, Steve, and the
article's author would LIKE to believe that such techniques would always
work, they do not seem to be able to provide any solid evidence. But the
idea that such techniques CAN work for at least SOME families, especially
where the parents are exceptionally dedicated and where the children are
inclined to be relatively reasonable, is not nearly as implausible as it
might appear at first glance. After all, if we adults are capable of
choosing to do what is right because we want to respect the rights and
feelings of others rather than because of fear that someone will punish us,
why would it be impossible for children to do so?

My own view is that parents should try to make non-punitive techniques work
as much as they reasonably can, because to whatever extent they do work,
they help children think like adults who do what is right because it is
right instead of like children who do what is right only because they are
afraid of getting in trouble if they don't. At worst, the number of
situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a
lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their
children's behavior. And at best, they might always be able to get their
children to behave well enough that the parents can live with their
children's occasional imperfections without feeling a need to resort to
punishment. After all, how many of us adults would want others to expect us
always to behave perfectly and punish us any time we don't?

Nathan


  #16  
Old June 17th 04, 02:40 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

Doan wrote:

this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one.

---------------------
Nonsense, if she's so ****ing smart she can teach her kids to
read long before they even go to school, as WE did! If it doesn't
work, or if her methods make her kids hate her guts, then obviously
she's WRONG!


Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right
thing," according to the experts.

------------------------
If her results are dog****, then she's wrong.
If her kids weren't REALLY "bad", if instead SHE was the only one
who was misbehaving, then SHE should be punished!


So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and
science that isn't science.

-------------------------------
That would be YOURS, the slack-jawed idjit contingent, which is
an ignorant pressure block of low-grade morons who resent people
with more brains than they have. These comprise the right-wingnut
pseudo-intellectual nutfringers who resent anything that doesn't
meet with their standards of ignorant viciousness and forcing things
that don't fit and don't work instead of using the correct tool for
the job as determined by REAL Science!


I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science.

-----------------------
Since you're the only backward cult member here, you're the one
building airplanes out of coconuts, jerkoff!
Steve



In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's
the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

(from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman.
Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974)

On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote:

The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney

  #17  
Old June 17th 04, 03:01 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"jitney" wrote in message
om...
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


The most important things that parents do to teach their children the
difference between right and wrong are to teach them and to set a good
example. If children understand how bad behavior would harm others, and if
they choose to empathize with others rather than focusing entirely on
themselves, their own consciences will provide a certain amount of
punishment for bad behavior independent of whether they are punished by
adults. For children who love their parents and who want their parents to
think well of them, parental disapproval can also serve as a certain amount
of punishment. And if a child's needs are met, and if parents do a good job
of teaching the child how to find happiness without feeling a need to take
things that don't belong to him or do things that harm others, the child has
lot less reason to want to do things that are wrong.

Imagine two children. One has a strong understanding of how wrong behaviors
will harm others, backed by a parental example of generosity and caring
about others, and his parents actively help him get at least most of what he
wants without having to harm others, but he has no fear of punishment beyond
that of his own conscience and his parents' disapproval unless he commits a
crime. The other child understands how wrong actions harm others far less
well and has parents who set a clearly selfish (and perhaps sometimes
hypocritical) example and care relatively little about the child's needs and
desires, but the child is likely to get spanked hard if he misbehaves - *IF*
he is caught. Which child is more likely to behave well? And, especially,
which child is more likely to behave well in situations where the risk of
being caught is minimal or essentially nonexistent?

I have very little idea of how reliably purely non-punitive parenting
techniques really work, and while people like Chris, Steve, and the
article's author would LIKE to believe that such techniques would always
work, they do not seem to be able to provide any solid evidence.

-------------------
Just because we're WHOLLY UN-interested in the idiotic "cite-wars"
that happen, when neurotic religiously-tortured morally-offended
Right-wingnuts try to deluge this thread with their phony X-spurt
website cut-n-pasties in response to our voluminous peer-reviewed
journals that anyone CAN read if they want to, does NOT support
YOUR moronic accusation that "they do not seem to be able to provide
any solid evidence." In fact the reverse is true, by factors of ten
to one or MORE!! Go ask all the child development authorities you
want, and write down their opinions, and then let those stand as
a vote for which is the Truth, if you're stupid enough to need that!


But the
idea that such techniques CAN work for at least SOME families, especially
where the parents are exceptionally dedicated and where the children are
inclined to be relatively reasonable, is not nearly as implausible as it
might appear at first glance.

-------------
Sure it is. All you're doing is trying to find an exception for your
vicious abusive little perversion, anything to excuse abuse when YOU
want to abuse!!

The evidence shows that it does harm, period, full stop, it does NOT
rate a doubt that you're trying to insist upon! It is like lighting
your children afire, it is VERY likely to burn them horribly, even if
it magically misses every thousandth one when the lighter fails, and
it is therefore ALWAYS STUPID AND ALWAYS TO BE FORBIDDEN!!!!!!


After all, if we adults are capable of
choosing to do what is right because we want to respect the rights and
feelings of others rather than because of fear that someone will punish us,
why would it be impossible for children to do so?

---------------------------------------
Because beatings can beat your victims into lying for twisted neurotic
psychological motives of terror and misplaced cognitive dissonance,
THAT'S why YOU DON'T GET to beat on your victims BEFORE they testify
against you!!!


My own view is that parents should try to make non-punitive techniques work
as much as they reasonably can, because to whatever extent they do work,
they help children think like adults who do what is right because it is
right instead of like children who do what is right only because they are
afraid of getting in trouble if they don't. At worst, the number of
situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a
lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their
children's behavior. And at best, they might always be able to get their
children to behave well enough that the parents can live with their
children's occasional imperfections without feeling a need to resort to
punishment.

--------------
Smarmy mealy-mouthed excuses for abuses. I gotte hand it to you,
you almost bent double talking your way all around THAT one, but
anyone can see that you tried to excuse some amount of punishment:

"At worst, the number of
situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a
lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their
children's behavior."


Truly SMARMY!


After all, how many of us adults would want others to expect us
always to behave perfectly and punish us any time we don't?
Nathan

--------------------------
All of us when it comes to the laws against felonies!!
Which is why child abusive terror must be BANNED LEGALLY!
Steve
  #18  
Old June 17th 04, 10:23 AM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

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



  #19  
Old June 17th 04, 11:36 AM
Lesa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"


"jitney" wrote in message
om...
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to
said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment.


  #20  
Old June 17th 04, 03:43 PM
Donna Metler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"


"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"jitney" wrote in message
om...
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead
academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people
need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child
without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on
society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate
mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if
they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls
in the first place.-Jitney


If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to
said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment.


With all children? With non-neurotypical children? With children adopted at
the age of 3 from foreign countries? With children in foster care?

You see, "teaching without punishing" has been pushed down the throats of
the educational system for more than a decade (I've been teaching that
long). ANd while it works with some children-the naturally compliant kids
who will burst into tears at the thought that they've failed an adult, there
are others who definitely take advantage of the situation.

The result is what you see in many public schools today (probably private
ones, too)-a bunch of kids who are very sure that nothing you can do will
affect them. They don't care about the relationship, or about pleasing the
teacher. They don't care about pleasing their parents. They don't care about
long-term results.

And the results is that no child in the same classroom gets a good
education.

And, it has been my impression that the "don't you DARE punish my child
because I don't believe in punitive parenting" parents are the ones who
generally have the WORST behaved children, and who stand up for their child,
shielding them from even natural consequenses the most-rather than the other
way around. Those parents who do use consequences at home generally don't
have to use many. They're not shrieking lunatics beating their child with an
extention cord (actually, those are more likely to be the parent who has
never before punished their child and then snaps-the worst cases of abuse
we've had in the school were exactly that). Rather, they've learned that
saying "NO" and enforcing that "When I say NO, and you don't listen, there
are consequenses" works. Punishment doesn't always mean spanking. It doesn't
have to ever mean spanking. But there needs to be some way of showing that
the child doesn't always have complete control of all situations.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris General 328 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.