How Children REALLY React To Control

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

Simple answer - Steve is a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

Why in the world would you think that?

Because he said so! :-0

I'm still puzzled as to the reasons for your saying, "Simple answer - Steve
is a 'never-spanked' kid! :-)" How do you view it as an answer at all? Or
was that meant purely as some sort of "inside joke" that I didn't have the
background to get?
-----------------
No, he just thinks it is some useful epithet to yell, and nobody
really knows why. It's true that my parents didn't punish me, but
why he gets such delight from shouting it in his posts is a total
mystery. I'd think that it would gall him to know that. I just
write it off to being a manifestation of his deep engrained
delusion because of his own childhood abuse.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

Simple answer - Steve is a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

Why in the world would you think that?

Because he said so! :-0

I'm still puzzled as to the reasons for your saying, "Simple answer - Steve
is a 'never-spanked' kid! :-)" How do you view it as an answer at all? Or
was that meant purely as some sort of "inside joke" that I didn't have the
background to get?

You got it!

Doan
--------------
It's SO "inside" that nobody gets it but him.
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

No. Think a minute, what is the one way someone could be exposed to
abuse and yet not themselves be abused, so that they learned about
abuse but had little or none of the neurotic reaction against it,
but who was scandalized by it and horrified by it unlike others more
accustomed to it?? Answer: By living as the exceptional family among
a real bunch of abusive insane fundy rural hillbillies and being
totally disgusted by the effects of abuse on their little playmates
who ARE being abyssmally abused for a decade or more by these abusive
cretins!!

If the statistics even come halfway close to holding, most of your "little
playmates" presumably grew up to believe in spanking.
------------------
That *IS* the classic effect of cognitive dissonance.
They agree with their abuser because of their desperate need to feel
they are loved, even if perversely so by their abusers.


Would you take the
kind of verbally abusive attitude toward them that you do toward me?
-------------------
Sure, they are like heroin addicts, they need a kick in the ass.


Or are
you just doing it toward me because I'm someone you don't know, and are
therefore more free to assume the worst about:?
----------------
We are before an audience, I talk, then you talk, the issues are
extremely serious beyond our two lives, if you can't handle it,
then stop. If you want a private appointment, call my nurse.


And why would you
expect such a tone to be any more successful with adults than it would
be with your children?
---------------------------
Because those who abuse need to be harmed to stop them,
they are beyond remediation. In future societies we will
need work-camps for such assholes.

"They need to be harmed to stop them" sounds an awful lot like the attitude
that "those who abuse" take toward children, doesn't it?
------------------------
No, the child isn't abusing anyone, the abuser is.


And if it is impossible to persuade people who believe that spanking is
useful that it isn't, how do you expect us to get to the kind of "future
societies" you speak of?
---------------------------
Why, kill them all, of course, they're criminals!

Or institute surveillance and public torture for such crimes
till they're so terrified of being caught or their angry kid
turning them in, that they desist. If terrifying them into
behaving is sufficient, maybe we won't need to torture too
many of them to death at halftime shows.
Steve

Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
: ...

: No. Think a minute, what is the one way someone could be exposed to
: abuse and yet not themselves be abused, so that they learned about
: abuse but had little or none of the neurotic reaction against it,
: but who was scandalized by it and horrified by it unlike others more
: accustomed to it?? Answer: By living as the exceptional family among
: a real bunch of abusive insane fundy rural hillbillies and being
: totally disgusted by the effects of abuse on their little playmates
: who ARE being abyssmally abused for a decade or more by these abusive
: cretins!!

: If the statistics even come halfway close to holding, most of your "little
: playmates" presumably grew up to believe in spanking. Would you take the
: kind of verbally abusive attitude toward them that you do toward me?

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris
-----------------
If you look at my post above, I would hardly call that
"verbally abusive".

As to being a "product of (abusive) child discipline":
Nope.
More complicated than that:

I witnessed OTHERS being severely abused and dishonored, while
I was not, so I was "abused" indirectly by witness of that abuse
to others, but was NOT abused, so I have both that AND survivor
guilt as MY motivations.
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, toto wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004 18:21:52 GMT, Chris wrote:

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

According to Steve, he was never spanked or punished at all.

I do, however, doubt that his parents used win-win techniques, but
since we don't have his parents posting here, we cannot know
what they really did.

Chris

But we know that Chris & LaVonne were spanked! Chris has an M.A in
Biology and LaVonne has a Ph.d. Their parents weren't stupid afterall!
:-)
Doan
--------------------
Think how much better off they'd be without ANY abuse.
Steve

Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

: "Chris" wrote in message
: ...
: 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

: Chris, this is anecdotal evidence. If I argued that there are thousands of
: parents who spank and get good results, you would correctly counter that
: just because there are thousands of parents who spank and get good results,
: that most definitely does not mean that all parents who spank get good
: results. So why should I accept the same kind of reasoning from you
: regarding non-punitive techniques?

: As I keep saying, how well strictly non-punitive techniques work depends on
: children's willingness to cooperate.

And as I keep saying, you miss the central driving force behind the
success of nonpunitive win/win discipline, which is every child's desire
for an harmonious relationship with the key adults in their lives
(provided the child's needs are being met in the process). You invoke
hypothetical children who are completely indifferent to the quality of
their relationships with their parents and then you use these hypothetical
children to reason that punishment is essential and the lack of it would
be a "disaster." But I have never met a child like that and I doubt if
you have. True, you have probably seen children who don't seem to care
about their parents' feelings, but show me a child like that and I will
show you a child whose parent's blow off the child's feelings. Children
give back what they get.

Chris
-------------------
Absolutely exactly right.

The abuser believes children come alienated from any concern for
their parents, and thus the abuser uses that to justify his abuse,
But that alienation is actually the result of abuse, And NOT any
child's original nature. Abusers believe an ignorant circularity.
Steve

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, toto wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004 18:21:52 GMT, Chris wrote:

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

According to Steve, he was never spanked or punished at all.

I do, however, doubt that his parents used win-win techniques, but
since we don't have his parents posting here, we cannot know
what they really did.

Chris

But we know that Chris & LaVonne were spanked! Chris has an M.A in
Biology and LaVonne has a Ph.d. Their parents weren't stupid afterall!
:-)
Doan
--------------------
Think how much better off they'd be without ANY abuse.
Steve

Yup! They could be like you! :-)

Doan

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

Simple answer - Steve is a "never-spanked" kid! :-)

Why in the world would you think that?

Because he said so! :-0

I'm still puzzled as to the reasons for your saying, "Simple answer - Steve
is a 'never-spanked' kid! :-)" How do you view it as an answer at all? Or
was that meant purely as some sort of "inside joke" that I didn't have the
background to get?

You got it!

Doan
--------------
It's SO "inside" that nobody gets it but him.
Steve

Could it be because your brain is fill with "****"? So much that it
oozed out of your mouth! :-)

Doan

On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:40:17 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 10 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

In alt.parenting.spanking Nathan A. Barclay
wrote:

: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
: ...

: No. Think a minute, what is the one way someone could be exposed
to
: abuse and yet not themselves be abused, so that they learned
about
: abuse but had little or none of the neurotic reaction against
it,
: but who was scandalized by it and horrified by it unlike others
more
: accustomed to it?? Answer: By living as the exceptional family
among
: a real bunch of abusive insane fundy rural hillbillies and being
: totally disgusted by the effects of abuse on their little
playmates
: who ARE being abyssmally abused for a decade or more by these
abusive
: cretins!!

: If the statistics even come halfway close to holding, most of
your "little
: playmates" presumably grew up to believe in spanking. Would you
take the
: kind of verbally abusive attitude toward them that you do toward
me?

Note that verbally abusive Steven is a product of the child
discipline
technique which you claim "by and large works well."

Chris

LOL! He was NEVER-SPANKED!

Chris lied then?

Did I say that? :-)

Usually you call people liars when they err.

Nope! I call a liar a liar when it fit and when I have proof!
Are you using stupidity as an excuse? ;-) The things I don't
do (unlike Y-O-U) is calling people "smelly-****", "**** you",
"public masturbation"..... and you said your mom is proud of
that???

Reforming?

To be a "never-spanked" like you and Steve? ;-)

You? A spanked child?

And you are a "never-spanked" child? ;-)

Wonders never cease.

LOL!

I do notice though that you laugh at other people's honest mistakes.

Honesty and anti-spanking zzzzealotS? That is a joke! :-)

Why is that Doan?

You figure it out with your "formidable" research skill! :-)

Still a little boy waiting fearing that when you go home you may get
spanked so you cover up your old inner fear by laughing at other
people? Did you laugh at your parents waiting to spank you?

Nope! I would laugh if my parents said they are proud if I call
other people "smelly-****". Is that how your mom parented you? :-)

Or were you afraid?

Yup! That is why I never used the "smelly-****" word. You must
have NO-FEAR of your parents. ;-)

I guess that's why Chris, so often in addressing you, laughed at
yo........oh wait. I can't count all the times you have him and he
hasn't at you. Well, I could do it far faster with him. I don't think
he has. Ever.

I guess that is why Chris called you stupid and you can say is "**** you,
Chris". :-)

Chris has treated you quite civily, and yet you claim you only give
what you get. Do you really think that is a true statement, or could
you be deceiving both us and yourself Doan?

Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle.
Don't kid yourself. At least, I don't use the "**** you, Chris" with him.

Why is that Doan?

Because my mom didn't teach me to use the "smelly-****" and "**** you"
words. Tell me, are "never-spanked" kids always turned out to be as
obnoxious and verbally abusive as you and Steve? ;-)

Could THAT be a lie, Doan, along with your claim you just tell parents
to make up their own mind about spanking. And that's really all you
do? R R R R

I never said other wise. I am for parents making up their mind. You
are not. You wanted to tell them what to do. I don't.

Years of peddling the spanking compulsive's agenda and you still can't
see it.

Really? I must be succeeding then, since 90%+ spanked! You are stupid!
:-)

My, I'm not Chris. I laugh. At you.

And I am not you! I didn't say "**** you, Chris"! ;-)

Doan

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Chris" wrote in message
...

And as I keep saying, you miss the central driving force behind the
success of nonpunitive win/win discipline, which is every child's desire
for an harmonious relationship with the key adults in their lives
(provided the child's needs are being met in the process). You invoke
hypothetical children who are completely indifferent to the quality of
their relationships with their parents and then you use these hypothetical
children to reason that punishment is essential and the lack of it would
be a "disaster."

My hypothesis does not require the existence of children who are "completely
indifferent." It requires only the existence of children whose desire to
engage in certain actions that their parents consider unacceptable outweighs
whatever damage to harmony those particular actions will cause.
----------------------
I see that "harmony" is your euphemism for abject obedience to your
ignorant immature and insecure sickness.

Their indifference to your concerns is caused BY the Nature OF your
concerns being wrong-headed and your pursuance of them being abusive,
disjhonoring, and disrespectful of them as persons. They hate you and
wish you were dead, even if they don't fully grasp that yet.


(By
"unacceptable," I am referring to matters serious enough that the parents
believe they ought to be non-negotiable or negotiable only within certain
boundaries, not just to actions parents would prefer not to accept.)
--------------------
If you cannot convince your children of that by reason and logic,
then you're merely wrong in your beliefs.


Further, children are not the only ones with a desire for harmony.
-------------------
Harmony is pleasant, unless it isn't for one side.


One of
the things that can happen in any relationship where needs and desires are
not entirely compatible is for there to be quiet power struggles in which
who wins and who loses depends on which side is willing to give in in the
interest of harmony first.
--------------------
No, actually that's you simply being wrong about human relationships
again. People who care about each other want each one of them to all
get what they each separately and differently want, and if you don't
then you're just fooling yourself and trying to fool them to pretend
that you "care about them" or "love them"!!!


(In an ideal relationship, both sides will love
each other enough and care enough about each other's desires that a middle
ground can be found without such a power struggle,
-----------------------
There is no such "middle ground". People who respect and love each
other make room all over the map for each other. They do NOT think
that everyone has to do the same things and feel the same.


but I don't view it as
realistic to expect all relationships to consistently measure up to that
ideal.) If the parents generally give in first, the result is in the
direction of the stereotypical spoiled brat who knows that if he or she
doesn't cooperate, harmony will still probably come when the parents give
up.
----------------
A child wanting what they want for themselves is NOT a "spoiled" or
any kind of "brat", and a parent who tries to run their child's
life instead of finding a better hobby for themselves *IS* nothing
but an immature BRAT!!!

If your child resents you enough to not wish for harmony with you,
then it is because YOU are wrong!!! The child isn't trying to control
YOU, YOU are the one trying to control!!


In most cases, the results will not be to nearly the extreme of the
"spoiled brat" stereotype, but situations in which children win and cause
their parents to lose because the children are willing to outlast their
parents in accepting disharmony will exist.
---------------------
And they can win whenever they want, so be nice to your kids or
they'll WANT to **** you up! If you're NICE to them, they will
love YOU and want YOU to be happy AS WELL!!


On the other hand, consider situations in which a child is reluctant to give
up doing what he or she wants to do in the interest of whatever amount of
harmony is at stake regarding that particular issue, and in which the
parents decide that they cannot afford to give up in the interest of harmony
because they view the issue as too important.
-----------------
Your entire take is one-sided, you completely ignore the degree to
which a parent trying to control to merely meet with his insane
or superstitious sense of order is inhumane and at fault. You indulge
in paranoid fantasy that children don't WANT you to be happy, when
it is as though you have walked up to a man on the stret and demanded
that he run HIS life as YOU want him to, and pretend HE'S the brat
for punching your face, when in FACT IT IS YOU who are the BRAT, and
YOU HAD IT COMING!!!!


purely non-punitive approach leaves the parents with no choice but to give
up, accept defeat, and let the child win no matter how concerned they are
about the possible consequences of the behavior.
-----------------------------
This is as it should be, because actually, in real human life, you
cannot control any other living person but YOURSELF, and pretending
that you can or should, and that others should obey you, is LUNACY!!!

If you had been POLITE, and PLEASANT, and had done your child FAVORS
in the past, and if you NEVER act INSULTING by pretending that you
get to CONTROL them, and if instead you have been their BEST FRIEND,
then they might very well accede to your wishes merely as a FAVOR to
you!

But as long as you pretend you should get to run their life, they
will HATE YOUR ****ING GUTS! This is a natural human reaction, simple
human nature!!


But I have never met a child like that and I doubt if
you have. True, you have probably seen children who don't seem to care
about their parents' feelings, but show me a child like that and I will
show you a child whose parent's blow off the child's feelings. Children
give back what they get.

You're fighting a straw man here. Children can care about their parents'
feelings but still not always care enough to behave in a way their parents
consider acceptable.
--------------------------
Then it means that your demands are inhumane and wrong!!!!!!!!!
Just as if you had tried such controlling **** WITH ANYONE ELSE!!!


Further, except maybe in families you are very, very
close to (or whose handling of behavioral issues you've studied in depth, if
you've done that sort of thing), I doubt that you know a whole lot about how
many conflicts are resolved by children's deciding to behave better in the
interest of harmony and how many are resolved by parents' lowering their
standards of what kind of behavior they are willing to accept in the
interest of harmony.
--------------------
I HOPE that the kind of abusive parents in the USA take it right
up the ass, myself, because the **** they try to pull SHOULD get
them BEATEN TO DEATH!!!


Also, how sure can you be that you aren't falling into the "The parents must
not be trying hard enough" trap? Keep in mind that there is a
self-selection process involved in whether or not parents stick to entirely
non-punitive methods.
------------------------------
Bull****. Parents have far more they can do for a child by way of
negotiation goods than kids can do for adults. And if you don't want
to PAY for your kids favors to you, especially when they think you
demand too much, then you should go shut the **** up and ****ing sit
down!!


Thus, if children do not care enough about their
parents' feelings to behave acceptably on a reasonably consistent basis, and
the parents respond by giving up on a non-punitive approach as a result, you
can dismiss those cases as ones in which the parents' lack of commitment to
non-punitive techniques is to blame.
-----------------
Except there is NO "blame", the kids were right and the parents WERE
WRONG!!! The kids stuck to their guns to get what they demanded for
their lives! Just like a union action!


Couple that with other cases in which
parents respond by substantially lowering their standards of what
constitutes acceptable behavior and the illusion that children always care
enough about harmony to behave acceptably becomes even more complete.
-------------------------
There's something you keep missing here!!! YOU CANNOT AND DO NOT
*GET* to control other people, they DON'T HAVE TO LET YOU, and
YOU are NOT big enough to STOP THEM! Therefore, you do NOT GET to
set any standards of acceptibility, and your wish is NOT assumed
to be correct or the optimum! You have NO more right to that over
THEm than THEY do over YOU!! YOU DO *NOT* get to define "ACCEPTIBLE"!!


And at a deeper level, as I said before, your view hinges on a
religious/philosophical view that human beings are automatons controlled
entirely by heredity and environment, with no free will to make choices for
ourselves, and that as long as parents do everything right, it is impossible
for children to do wrong (except maybe once in a very rare while) once they
understand how their actions impact others.
------------------------
IF a parent treats his kid properly, then he WON'T EVEN *BE* the
kind of ASSHOLE who PRETENDS he has some right to expect his kid
to accept his asinine madness!!! He won't *BE* crazy like YOU are!

It's a positive circular TAUTOLOGY:
*IF* he treats his child as an equal,
then he won't **NOT** treat his kid as an EQUAL!!!

Why do you have so much trouble GETTING THAT!|??????

YOU keep thinking that you can somehow use disingenuous and dishonest
"tactics" to CONTROL your child. If you think such ****, then you will
NEVER understand how to JUST RESPECT THEM!!!


To those of us who believe in free will,
------------------------
It doesn't matter how many of you are delusional, it won't be true!
The future is a result of the past, and as long as cause and effect
runs the Universe, it's neither POSSIBLE, NOR even DESIRABLLE to
have "Free Will".


and who thus believe that children can choose to do good no
matter how bad their parents are and that children can choose to do bad no
matter how good their parents are, your underlying religious/philosophical
assumption is not valid.
----------------------------
If you're abusive of your children they will hate your ****ing guts.
If you then pretend that they shouldn't hate your ****ing guts for
what you did, that will NOT help! They will EVEN hate your ****ing
guts MORE!! NO one can actually honestly believe they have ANY choice
not to hate those who abuse and disrespect them. Cause and effect is
the heart of Natural Law.


If you want to convince me that purely non-punitive techniques
work so reliably that punishment is never needed,
---------------
No, "techniques", connivances, do not "work". Only equality and
respect works.

YOU are the criminal, YOU are the abuser, they are merely your
victims, what YOU did was WRONG, and EVIL. What they do isn't
even TO you, and therefore, it's none of your ****ing business.

So the REAL reason punishment is NOT needed, is because
***IT*** ***IS*** *THE* *CRIME*!


and especially if you want to
convince me that that is true in the real world with real parents with all
their human flaws rather than only in an idealized world in which all
parents are fairly close to perfect, you'll need a whole lot more than just
claims based on anecdotal evidence.

Nathan
----------------
Your abuse, dishonoring, and disrespect is what makes them hate you.
We put people in jail who try to do what parents TRY to do.
Steve