"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

The fact that
some parents have marvelous success without needing to use punishment
and write articles about their success in no way implies that all
parents
who use those methods would have similar success - and especially does
not imply that parents forced into using such methods without being
truly
committed to them the way the author was would have similar success.
---------------------
All you're doing is trying to make any "success" look FUZZY as to
cause, so that you can retain your favorite little sick compulsion!

What I am trying to do is draw a distinction between evidence that meets
scientific criteria and evidence that does not. The difference between us
regarding science is that you put essentially blind faith in the opinions of
scientists who happen to agree with you, while I accept scientists' opinions
as scientifically valid only if those opinions can be backed up using
legitimate scientific methodology.

ALL of those who HONOR their children's freedom to decide for
themselves what they should do, as long as it is not CRIMINAL
under Adult Laws, those parents succeed.

Show me your scientific evidence that supports this claim. Otherwise, it is
nothing more than an opnion based on anecdotal evidence, and is therefore
unscientific - and wholly unsuited to publication in a refereed scientific
journal as anything BUT opinion.

What the article
provides in regard to evidence in success is purely anecdotal in nature.
----------------
Nonsense, that is merely your LIE, the results of the abuse of
children are in our prisons, and their abuse has been documented
by penologists for over a century!

Using methodologies that compare very broad categories, often even lumping
children who were victims of treatment that legally qualifies as child abuse
with those who were spanked. But Straus and Mouradian's 1998 research makes
it very clear that broad averages for all spankers do not apply to parents
who never spank as a result of having "lost it." The fact that the "lost
it" factor accounts for such a major difference - a difference most studies
fail to notice at all - reinforces my belief that there are also other
differences in parenting styles that make some parents who spank more
effective than others. That greatly limits the value of those studies in
condemning the kinds of parenting styles that I regard as reasonable.

And I might add that several of the differences I view as important in
determining which spanking parents I consider likely to be successful and
which I consider more likely to have bad outcomes involve the use of skills
also used by non-coercive parents and the at least partial adoption of
attitudes adopted more fully by non-coercive parents. That makes it
extremely difficult for you to make a rational argument that those methods'
and attitudes' adoption or rejection by spanking parents can be expected to
be irrelevant to the results those parents achieve.

Frankly, I view it as hypocritical for Chris to resoundingly vilify
anecdotal evidence when used by people who support spanking (as he
certainly did in past times when I was active on alt.parenting.spanking)
yet accept anecdotal evidence in support of non-punitive parenting
methods essentially without question.
-----------------------------
None such! There is sufficient peer-reviewed research to ban ALL
forms of dishonoring abuse of children, YOU simply characterize it
OTHERWISE IN YOUR *LIE* because you're DESPERATE to
preserve your CHILD-ABUSIVE PERVERSION!

Put up or shut up. Can you show me a study of the success rates even when
parents VOLUNTARILY adopt such a restriction? How about a study showing the
success rate among parents who are FORCED to do so against their will, which
would almost certainly be dramatically lower? Without such studies, you
have no scientific basis from which your claim can be supported.

2) How much should society demand from parents? There are limits to
how much freedom children can be given without giving children the
power to take away their parents' freedom.
---------------
Absolute nonsense, giving children their freedom IN NO WAY encroaches
on the true freedom of their parents, their convenience, surely, but
NOT their freedom!

On the contrary, your need to use the words "true freedom" instead of just
the word "freedom" is clear evidence that I am right. You have to define
the "true freedom" of parents downward from the freedom adults who are not
parents enjoy, or even from the freedom that parents enjoy under current
law, in order to make room for your claims about what children are entitlted
to.

With young children, parents cannot go
somewhere and leave the children at home. With children of any age, it
is usually impractical if not outright impossible for parents to come
home
from a place they go with their children without bringing their children
home with them (although sometimes it's practical for the kids to get a
ride with someone else). And there are things that it is dangerous for
children to do without a parent there to supervise.
-------------------
Then they should change their lives around their children, AS THEY
DO AND SHOULD DO ANYWAY! If you didn't WANT children on THEIR
terms, then you SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY!!

We agree that they should change their lives. Where we disagree is in
regard to how much change the law should require them to make.

If parents WANT to give up the amount of freedom they have to in order
never to coerce their children, that is one thing.
---------------
This is merely your vicious LIE! None such is so!

In terms of net effect, it is at least theoretically possible that greater
cooperation on some occasions from children who are never coerced would make
up for, or even more than make up for, other situations in which they choose
not to cooperate. But in order to claim that such is scientific fact, you
will need supporting research. Further, if you want the assertion to stand
scientifically in a comparison between never-coerced children and children
whose parents use mostly cooperative methods but coerce them occasionally,
you will need a study that digs a whole lot deeper than just lumping all
children who are ever coerced together.

But in my view, trying to FORCE parents to give up the
amount of freedom
---------------
NOT "freedom", only some imaginary "privilege of abuse" that is
harmful to the child, AND to the parent's character!

Freedom that you ignore because it conflicts with your concept of how much
freedom parents are supposed to have in your world view.

In regard to what is fair, keep in mind that adults do not generally
have the power to coerce other adults merely by refusing to
cooperate.
----------------
Hahahah! They do NOTHING *BUT* THAT, that IS what the economic WORLD
is all about!!!

The only "coercion" in economics is of the form, "Here's the deal. Take it
or leave it." Granted, in cases of monopoly or when all businesses in an
industry do the same thing, people can be left with no practical
alternative. But normally, people do have two choices: take it, or leave
it.

In contrast, if a child wants to stay in a store when the parents go home,
and the parents cannot persuade the child and are forbidden to use coercion,
the parents would generally have no realistic alternative but to stay.

An adult
cannot say with his actions, "I'm not going, so you can't go either,"
or,
"I'm staying, so you have to stay too."
-----------------
They do indeed, or have you never been MARRIED!!!???

My parents often took separate vehicles to church so my mother could head
home right after services and my father could stay and talk. If married
people want to give each other the power to control each other's comings and
goings, they can. But they don't have to. Granted, married couples'
options are far more restricted if they share a single vehicle, but that
restriction is a result of their sharing something, not a result of any
inherent power that they have over each other.

An adult can't say, "I'm going to
do this, so you have to supervise me."
-------------------
When you work in human care, especially elder care, they certainly do!!

Only long enough that you don't place someone in danger when you quit the
job, or long enough to put the relative you're caring for in a nursing home.

You have chosen to have children!! You SHOULD NOT have if you
didn't want those obligations! Having children is a debt of obligation!!

We agree that having children involves a debt of obligation. Where we do
not agree is on the size of that debt. I do not accept that allowing
children to control parents' actions in such a manner is part of the debt.

On one side, we have the debt that parents owe children, from which we
subtract the value of food, clothing, shelter, and various other things
parents provide. On the other, we have the debt children owe their parents
for giving them the opportunity to live and for taking care of them. Since
both parents and children give each other love and affection (at least in
any parenting style that I would be willing to accept as legitimate, and
assuming the children react in a way that is at all normal), the value there
roughly cancels out.

Weighing those two debts against each other, I think giving the parents the
power to coerce the children is fairer than giving the children the power to
coerce the parents.

Unlike Steve, I view life as an opportunity, not a burden.
-------------------
YOU view children as some "burden", mine were a joyful opportunity,
so you're lying like a **** here.

I actually view chidren as an opportunity with some burden attached. And I
would note that you cannot coerce parents into viewing their children purely
as an opportunity.

And I don't
think that parents' having the power to choose when to put their own
desires first and when to put their children's first in regard to such
issues is an unreasonable price for children to pay for that
opportunity.
---------------------
Then you must never have been a parent, THAT *IS* what parenthood *IS*!!

What are you referring to by "THAT"? What it looks like you're saying and
what I'm guessing you intended to say based on your general attitudes don't
match.

That certainly
does not mean that I view it as appropriate for parents to order their
children around without even trying to ask nicely, nor does it mean that
I have any respect for parents who almost always put their own interests
ahead of their children's.
------------------------
You simply have no proper boundaries, so you can't be specific about
anything, whereas *I* CAN!!

The reason why I have "no proper boundaries" is that parents and children in
different families have different needs and interests. Because of that, it
is impossible for a philosophy that views the difference between "good" and
"bad" parenting in terms of balancing those interests to draw a single line
that would fit all families. In contrast, it is vastly easier for a
philosophy such as yours that makes no attempt at balance to draw "proper
boundaries" - and never mind how unfair those boundaries are to a mother who
gets fired because she was late trying to persuade her four-year-old to go
to daycare instead of simply taking him.