Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"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.
---------------
Nonsense, you shade the truth and beg the question.
The difference between us
regarding science is that you put essentially blind faith in the opinions of
scientists who happen to agree with you,
---------------
Nope, in data that always agrees with me when done competently.
while I accept scientists' opinions
as scientifically valid only if those opinions can be backed up using
legitimate scientific methodology.
-----------------
Which you deny merely because you wish it, and then try to nit-pick.
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.
-------------
*IF* you study ALL available research, AND judge the sources fairly,
I won't NEED to.
While trying to FORCE you to be honest by dueling cites is totally
futile to true believers like you.
You have to be honest enough to toss the disreputable sources, and
to dismiss the manically multiplied websites of cranks. Then you
have to have a decent ethical overview of where humanity is headed,
rather than a neurotic agenda, in order to understand the data.
When you do that, you will agree with me.
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.
--------------
You are doing the equivalent of debating whether fire burns, and you
are claiming that it may not every time. Your position is simply not
logically reasonable, because fire burns, and that it may miss someone
accidentally is not cause to dismiss the overall truth, that fire can
burn everytime you use it.
Hitting, coercing, abusing children's rights, does the same kind of
harm, and while you can find anecdotes shaded anecdotes as you are
doing is a disingenuous form of arguing, without reason or logic on
your part. Hitting, coercing, bullying, can do the worst that it can
do, every time it is used, EVERYTIME IT IS USED, just like fire can
burn, there is NO more safety to using force and disrespect upon
children than to set them afire!
And pretending that some benign use of fire STILL exists that makes
children, scream, be afraid, or hate, is only evidence that you're
an insane *******!!
But Straus and Mouradian's 1998 research makes
-----------------------
Indivudual researchers and their arguments are ONLY important in the
broader scheme of things that includes ALL research in the field that
is competent, and they more than make up for any anecdotal defect in
Straus et alia that you CRANKS can only TRY to exploit for your DARK-
HEARTED LYING!!
NO force, bullying, assault, disrespect or coercion has ANY reasonably
arguable "good effect" upon children!! They can tell you this, but you
SIMPLY WON'T LISTEN!!!
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?
--------------
Simple foundational principle of Science: Anecdote CAN INDEED
stand as counter-example against established principle, but
can NEVER stand in support of some new one. That is due to the
unidirectional nature of causation, IF -- THEN.
The principle is the assertion that abuse can benefit children.
Countless anecdote and in fact systematic evidence shows that
it only damages kids.
The Over-Riding Interest is to prevent harm to children, and
BOTH anecdote AND systematic research points to the effect of
abuse being extremely negative, even of that kind which
previously had been accepted.
NO less prevalent anecdote can stand to counter that counter-
example of the asserted principle, that abuse CAN benefit
children, thus the asserted principle fails.
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?
------------
Any such study, in light of Systematic Research and Public Interest
in children's health, would be ethically forbidden!
Without such studies, you
have no scientific basis from which your claim can be supported.
------------------
That is something you merely SAY because you WISH it were so.
It is NOT the Truth.
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.
-----------------
True Freedom merely specifies that someone's freedom can only be
their statute freedoms, and NOT be confused with the burdens of
their acquired legal obligations. Family and Contract Law would
be impossible without this.
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.
----------------------------
Nope, those are their voluntarily assumed contractual and familial
obligations, and don't negate their freedoms, rather they represent
the VERY USE of them.
No burden of care of another, adult or child, mitigates the right of
that person cared for to decent non-abusive and respectful treatment,
whether they are an elder, or crippled by accident or disease process.
Children are not different!!
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.
---------------------------------
The law does to a great degree, and it should, to any other degree
necessary, require that parents treat their children with respect,
without asaault or threat, and without violation of their right, as
equals, just as they would have to do other infirm or disabled adults
in their care.
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.
------------------
Bull****!
Do YOU have to prove that YOU are polite or obedient or respectful or
in ANY way concessionary to the larger of your housemates before being
allowed YOUR human rights????? Sort of defeats ALL PURPOSE of Rights,
now, doesn't it?? WELL!: It's the SAME FOR CHILDREN!!
Such a concession BY children is NOT, and should NEVER BE, a condition
upon the REQUIRED OBSERVATION OF THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS and their DECENT
RESPECTFUL AND EQUAL TREATMENT!!
But it *IS*, in fact, TRUE that this is affectionate cooperation
*IS* most typically a RESULT of such decent respectful treatment!
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.
------------------------
No "lumping" is needed. Each individual instance as anecdote stands
as an offensive horror repugnant to all thinking beings.
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.
-----------------------------
They should not have the supposed "right" to deprive another of
THEIR rights, or else a Right means nothing!!
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."
-----------------------
Same with people. If both have something they might gain, they will
negotiate further, same as housemates.
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.
---------------------
Nope, only if they pay sticker price. People cooperate all the time,
but they need not do so, it is not the right of others to demand it.
That right must be acknowledged for all, even children!
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.
------------------------
If the child is too small to remain without danger, they can be
removed by way of rescue, but to do so before you have treated
a child respectfully, inquired of their desires, and asked their
help for yourself is both highhanded and premature.
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.
-----------------
Neither should children have to be coerced in that manner.
They also 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.
-------------------------
Families that respect each other find ways to get as much and as many
opportunities for all their members as they can, and they cooperate
mutually to do it. But this doesn't happen without the respect that
entirely obviates assault, threat, force and coercion.
But in a home that only bullies, you won't find the respect required!!
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.
-------------------------------------
There were not always such places, and in future there may not be
again. Ever been lodged in one?
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.
---------------------
They don't control your actions, your obligations require it of you.
There is a big difference! You can meet your obligations in any manner
YOU choose, as long as you truly DO SO, and they don't have a say in
that! But you must meet your familial and contractual obligations or
be prosecuted.
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.
----------------
Nope, this is not the nature of the obligation, which is one-way,
since an infant is unable to respond legally, and since no contract
can be required of another without their assent. Nor does some
obligation magically come into being as the child grows. You are
once again confabulating, making it up out of whole cloth to suit
yourself, without feeling any obligation to make reasoned sense and
explain any logical origin of anything you assert!
Think!: If the obligation was bidirectional parent to child, then
there would be no reason for obligation to pass to future generations
to justify protecting the air and water and civilization for them.
You do for your children, and they for THEIR children, as it SHOULD
be, you do NOT require that they pay you BACK somehow for their
support, because YOU incurred THAT debt to them, for something YOU
wanted, namely, children, and you did so not to obligate them to YOU,
but to THEM, as a debt to The Ages.
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.
----------------------
The effect of that is to deprive the young of respect, honoring,
and rights which they need to optimize their self-esteem, and
their self-confidence and personal fulfillment, and at their
expense to whom? To their parents! Such greed of parents toward
their children makes them out to be immature cowardly venal
scum, who shouldn't even be ALLOWED to breed such an emotional
sickness into our species!! Avaricious, indecent, cowardly!!
Ashes in their mouthes, ashes in their mouthes!!
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.
-------------------------------------
Then we need laws preventing pregnancy till they do so!!!!!
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.
----------------------------
Parenthood is the joyful sacrifice, enjoyed for itself, unresented.
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.
------------
WHAT their needs and interests are is irrelevant, ONLY MEETING them is!
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.
----------------
We need a society which supports the parent, period, and pays them
for parenting as their occupation while they do it!! Kids are far
too important to leave to people who are being oppressed while
trying to parent.
Steve
|