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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Doan wrote:
On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote: Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle. ---------------- No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea. I am for parents making up their mind. You are not. You wanted to tell them what to do. I don't. -------------- Yes, that's right, you understand it now, we're for the equal rights of children, and their defense by the Majority! 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??? [] Nope! I would laugh if my parents said they are proud if I call other people "smelly-****". Is that how your mom parented you? :-) [] Yup! That is why I never used the "smelly-****" word. You must have NO-FEAR of your parents. ;-) [] Don't kid yourself. At least, I don't use the "**** you, Chris" with him. [] 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? ;-) [] And I am not you! I didn't say "**** you, Chris"! ;-) ---------------- You seem to be PROUD about your ignorant mental-verbal blockage! How can you use words you think are "dirty" and why do you think that crap?? Very puzzling. Your couth is turned inside out!! Steve |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: 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 ---------------------- You're looking in the mirror again, you ****-mouthed peckerhead. Steve Nope, I was looking down the toilet, taking a dump, and I see MYSELF with my mouth wide open. Then, I started thinking, is that my **** coming out of my mouth? ;-) Doan ---------------- I wondered how you could look down the toilet while taking a dump unless your mouth was your asshole. Steve |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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". Then your brain must be filled with "****" instead of gray matter! :-) Even Chris can see that it's "verbally abusive". Are you calling Chris, M.A. in biology, stupid? ;-) 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 Then you are a coward to take responsibility for own behavior and have to use the "I was abused" excuse. Doan -------------------- That doesn't even make any sense. I never used any excuses. Steve |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: 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. How well do you think your tone plays before that audience? Do you come across as someone interested in discussing the issues in a civil and rational way, or as a fanatic who is unwilling to consider even the remotist possibility that he might be anything less than 100% correct? And which tone do you think the audience would be inclined to view as more credible? Keep in mind that any system of logic is based on axioms, things that people believe are true but cannot objectively prove are true. When people start with different axioms, they can reach different conclusions even though both are following perfectly valid logic based on the axioms that they believe are true. If people recognize that they are operating from different axioms, they can identify which axioms cause them to reach different conclusions, understand the root causes of their disagreement, and disuss why each holds the axioms he does. If not, they are likely to keep talking past each other indefinitely. Each will be convinced that he is right and, in fact, each will be able to "prove" that he is right, but they will never really understand each other. A large part of your problem of trying to tell me how I felt as a child has to do with the fact that your axioms are so different from those that I held as a child. You accept as an axiom (or something very close to the axiom level) that the only proper relationship between parent and child is that of equals. Therefore, you assume that children's reasoning and their emotional reactions must be based on that axiom. And if the reactions a person remembers having as a child do not fit that axiom, you assume that the person must be self-deluded. But the axioms I accepted were very different. I accepted the belief that God gave parents authority over children, and that children were supposed to obey that authority. That did not mean that I considered it okay for parents (or for teachers acting under authority delegated by my parents) to exercise their authority in clearly unfair or arbitrary ways. Far from it. There were several occasions, especially at school, where I felt like I was punished unfairly (not necessarily with corporal punishment) and I resented it a great deal. But unless I viewed a rule as clearly unreasonable, I viewed the use of punishment to enforce the rule as legitimate. That's how my desire to keep reading after bedtime fits together with my belief that it would not have been unfair or unreasonable if my parents had punished me for my late-night reading. The rule wasn't what I would have preferred, but it was reasonable enough that I accepted it as a legitimate exercise of my parents' authority nonetheless. And my memories of feeling that way go directly back to at least two separate times when I got caught, with chains of continuity far too strong for me to see any realistic possibility that the memories could be delusions invented after the fact. (What I mean by "chains of continuity" is that I don't just remember, but I remember remembering.) That's not to say that I never resented times when I was punished, and certainly not to say that I never resented being told what to do or what not to do. But the level of resentment was mostly at the level of "I'm not getting my way" rather than at the level of "There is something fundamentally wrong with this" - except for the times when my analysis of a punishment found no legitimate basis for viewing it as fair. And the fact that I do have very clear memories of having had opinions regarding whether punishments were fair or unfair at the time I was being punished, or very close to that time, and of coming to different conclusions about different punishments, makes it that much harder to believe that my memories could be a product of some kind of delusion. Of course if you want to, you can shut your eyes and ignore even the possibility that there might be some validity to what I am saying, and that your preconceptions regarding how children react to being punished might be less than 100% accurate. But I'll know beyond the tiniest sliver of a doubt that your doing so is a result of an arrogant, closed-minded refusal to even consider the possibility that you might not be 100% infallible regarding such matters, and I imagine most of our audience will recognize that fact as well. Or you can listen to what I have to say, and think about how things would look through the eyes of a child who believes that parental authority was instituted by God, and reconsider whether you might be overestimating the extent to which adults' acceptance of our having been punished as children is purely a result of some kind of delusion. Maybe at least one of the reasons why not all children who are spanked react the way you think we should is that we don't (and, as children, didn't) look at the issue through the same religious and philosophical frame of reference that you do, and that what makes no sense relative to your frame of reference makes (and has always made) significantly more sense relative to ours. While we're on the subject of axioms, there are two other places where your axioms and mine diverge widely. One involves the question of who owes what to whom as a result of parents' having children. You view the entire debt as being a debt from parents to their children, as if a person's being brought into this world were solely a burden and not at all an opportunity. There are those at the other extreme who view the debt as going entirely the other way, arguing that since children would not exist if it were not for their parents, anything parents want to do to their children should be considered legitimate. My view is somewhere in between, that there are things that both parents and children owe each other. Any of those three positions can be defended from certain religious and philosophical perspectives, and just claiming that your position must be true is unlikely to persuade people who hold fundamentally different positions that you are right. Another place where our axioms are different is in regard to the use of parents' power to protect children from themselves. My view is that parents are better equipped than children to evaluate the dangers and possible long-term consequences of an action, and that it is thus proper for parents to make a certain amount of use of their authority to stop their children from doing dangerous things. Your view is that if parents cannot persuade a child that a danger is excessive, the parents have no legitimate authority to stop the child. Again, both points of view can be defended depending on a person's religious and philosophical perspective. But just claiming over and over that your perspective is the right one is unlikely to convince those of us who hold a different underlying belief. (And you might think about whether you would hold your principles yourself if you lived in a time and place where the dangers children face were a lot greater than they were in your own home.) I hope I've given you some things to think about here, and that you actually will take the time to think about them. You have some perspectives that it would be interesting to discuss if you would be willing to set aside your anger and your certainty that you cannot possibly be wrong for long enough to have a real discussion. I'll leave you with one last thought: the Golden Rule. Are you treating people on the other side of the issue the way you would want us to treat you? Are you listening to us and considering the possibility that we might have points worth considering the way you would like us to listen to you and consider the possibility that you might have points worth considering? Nathan |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: 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. How well do you think your tone plays before that audience? Do you come across as someone interested in discussing the issues in a civil and rational way, or as a fanatic who is unwilling to consider even the remotist possibility that he might be anything less than 100% correct? And which tone do you think the audience would be inclined to view as more credible? -------------------- Can't possibly do better than to be truthful. Keep in mind that any system of logic is based on axioms, things that people believe are true but cannot objectively prove are true. When people start with different axioms, they can reach different conclusions even though both are following perfectly valid logic based on the axioms that they believe are true. If people recognize that they are operating from different axioms, they can identify which axioms cause them to reach different conclusions, understand the root causes of their disagreement, and disuss why each holds the axioms he does. If not, they are likely to keep talking past each other indefinitely. Each will be convinced that he is right and, in fact, each will be able to "prove" that he is right, but they will never really understand each other. ------------------------ That would be true of one simple stllogistic logic, but not of ALL logical tools employed at once as humans can do. And that greater logic is NOT axiomatic, but intuitive. Logicians have numerous examples of this meta-tool logic. A large part of your problem of trying to tell me how I felt as a child has to do with the fact that your axioms are so different from those that I held as a child. -------------- No problem, for someone perceptive they are eminently discussable. That is called psychology. You accept as an axiom (or something very close to the axiom level) that the only proper relationship between parent and child is that of equals. ---------------- Not at all, being treated other than an equal is fine, such as in infancy or when an invalid, as long as those helping you DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO, AND NOT WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT!! Also, ledership is fine, when VOLUNTARY, and only for as LONG as it is VOLUNTARY! The key is simply, are you getting what you want/need. And what you want IS what you need! Therefore, you assume that children's reasoning and their emotional reactions must be based on that axiom. And if the reactions a person remembers having as a child do not fit that axiom, you assume that the person must be self-deluded. -------------------- Delusion of desire only comes about when paranoia is produced, and that occurs dur to abuse. But the axioms I accepted were very different. I accepted the belief that God gave parents authority over children, and that children were supposed to obey that authority. -------------- But that is merely an abusive lie based on deception, and leads to paranoia of any such authority in future once the victim's state of abuse is discovered with experience. There is no way to show such a thing is or should be true, thus it is not an acceptible belief. That did not mean that I considered it okay for parents (or for teachers acting under authority delegated by my parents) to exercise their authority in clearly unfair or arbitrary ways. Far from it. ---------------- Then you were forced by that lie to conclude that your will in fact contradicted that of "Gawd" or that your parents were abusive liars. There were several occasions, especially at school, where I felt like I was punished unfairly (not necessarily with corporal punishment) and I resented it a great deal. ------------------ That is the dissonance that proves the defect of such a relationship. But unless I viewed a rule as clearly unreasonable, I viewed the use of punishment to enforce the rule as legitimate. ------------------ And so do we often, we are forced, as childrenn, to trust blindly, but we also sense when we are being taken unfair advantage of. Our feeling that something required of us is wrong is our human right at work, deciding our path for us. It must be respected as anyone else's should be, to prevent one ignorant human from being allowed to subsume another's very Life!! That's how my desire to keep reading after bedtime fits together with my belief that it would not have been unfair or unreasonable if my parents had punished me for my late-night reading. --------------------- Nonsense. You resented it, we are surely NOT expected to believe that you disagreed with your own reasoning! You were behaving in self- contradiction if you entertained for a moment that they knew some magical facts that made their opinion superior to yours, and such illicit power implies that deception by alleged "magical" superiority. People resent the catholic church for similar reasons. The rule wasn't what I would have preferred, but it was reasonable enough that I accepted it as a legitimate exercise of my parents' authority nonetheless. ------------------- Capitulation is not agreement, You were abused and considered yourself so, you simply do not wish to say that of your parents simply so that you can continue now to feel loved in retrospect! And my memories of feeling that way go directly back to at least two separate times when I got caught, with chains of continuity far too strong for me to see any realistic possibility that the memories could be delusions invented after the fact. (What I mean by "chains of continuity" is that I don't just remember, but I remember remembering.) ---------------------- You are merely describing your experience in self-deceptive terms. I told you why. That's not to say that I never resented times when I was punished, and certainly not to say that I never resented being told what to do or what not to do. But the level of resentment was mostly at the level of "I'm not getting my way" rather than at the level of "There is something fundamentally wrong with this" - except for the times when my analysis of a punishment found no legitimate basis for viewing it as fair. ------------------ That is abuse. That causes future progressive revenge formation and distrust. That is why the older child evades parental wishes with little concern, and it may cause danger to him. The line of communication has come down because his end has decided that his parents are not worth trusting. Trust must still be evalauated by one indulging in it, it still cannot be blind trust. Parental assertion that they "know better" than he does when there is no logical reason to believe that registers as a deception in the child's mind, and poisons the adult-child relationship. After such betrayal these people can now never live together as equal adults, just like you would have trouble trusting a housemate who has stolen from you. The child must still always decide for himself to his satrisfaction. If the free child feels unable to decide and turns over decision to parents as his wish, that is quite a different matter!!! And the fact that I do have very clear memories of having had opinions regarding whether punishments were fair or unfair at the time I was being punished, or very close to that time, and of coming to different conclusions about different punishments, makes it that much harder to believe that my memories could be a product of some kind of delusion. ---------------------- Fairness is a fairly early sense in humans, as early as pre-age 2. Of course if you want to, you can shut your eyes and ignore even the possibility that there might be some validity to what I am saying, and that your preconceptions regarding how children react to being punished might be less than 100% accurate. But I'll know beyond the tiniest sliver of a doubt that your doing so is a result of an arrogant, closed-minded refusal to even consider the possibility that you might not be 100% infallible regarding such matters, and I imagine most of our audience will recognize that fact as well. ---------------------------------- I have faith that if I did so you would be right, but whether you grasp quite how or not, I don't do that. I don't base my positions on whether I might seem infallible or not, but upon the Truth. If I need to seem to contradict myself and make the job difficult, more so than it might be, I still do that if the Truth forces me. Or you can listen to what I have to say, and think about how things would look through the eyes of a child who believes that parental authority was instituted by God, and reconsider whether you might be overestimating the extent to which adults' acceptance of our having been punished as children is purely a result of some kind of delusion. ---------------- The child who has been misled as to parental authority "Gawd", knows long before he can express it, that he is being deceived, and simply because such an assertion makes no logical sense without extensive proofs that would even impress a philosophy teacher, and that resentment starts long before his absolute denial in his ming of that assertion. And that resentment causes a degradation of the parent-child trust relationship, and that can never be recovered. Maybe at least one of the reasons why not all children who are spanked react the way you think we should is that we don't (and, as children, didn't) look at the issue through the same religious and philosophical frame of reference that you do, and that what makes no sense relative to your frame of reference makes (and has always made) significantly more sense relative to ours. --------------------------- Whatever they know and when, and no matter how little they seem to have understood earlier, all children will finally figure out if they have been lied to and deceived IN RETOSPECT, and that parental betrayal will cause then the very same degradation of the parent-child relationship as it might have previously. NO lie goes forgotten with time. ALL are remebered and held serious as to evaluating someone's trustworthiness. While we're on the subject of axioms, there are two other places where your axioms and mine diverge widely. One involves the question of who owes what to whom as a result of parents' having children. You view the entire debt as being a debt from parents to their children, as if a person's being brought into this world were solely a burden and not at all an opportunity. ----------------------- I do that to turn the tables, because the notion of a child being in debt is nothing more than simple bamboozlement by adults, it is not a reasonable Truth, and my argument is WHY it is not. They didn't ask to come here. There are those at the other extreme who view the debt as going entirely the other way, arguing that since children would not exist if it were not for their parents, anything parents want to do to their children should be considered legitimate. ------------------------ Haven't you ever noted that the belief that one OWNS one's children is merely awfully damned convenient, and not really respectable as a human feeling? It turns humans into slaves, and with each generation magically thence becoming the slave of all previous, the human race becomes entirely enslaved to the past, no one ever free, and no one EVER living the life where they get what THEY want. It is sure and certain breeding ground for a revolt, a revolution, since the old rely upon the young. The old lost this one a long time ago, and in tribal society's without benefit of technology based on petroleum, no elder would EVER DARE to try to pull THAT one, they could easily wind up on an ice floe or starving to death when next they are under the weather, as we are moreso with age. So that dispenses with THAT sort of nonsense!!!!! Every tribal society has lore dictating respect for the young else the old would perish from their abusiveness. The old ASK the young to help them, perhaps guilt them into it, but NEVER try to force them or deceive them, lest they die earlier than they might!!! My view is somewhere in between, that there are things that both parents and children owe each other. Any of those three positions can be defended from certain religious and philosophical perspectives, and just claiming that your position must be true is unlikely to persuade people who hold fundamentally different positions that you are right. ---------------- Still, deceiving others or coercing others simply does NOT work!! Not for either of them, still, the old must avoid taking the liberties that their size for the first decade affords them, or they will find their children gone in the night. Don't bully, or you'll have NO friends!! and believe me you NEED friends MORE THAN YOU'D EVER THINK! Another place where our axioms are different is in regard to the use of parents' power to protect children from themselves. My view is that parents are better equipped than children to evaluate the dangers and possible long-term consequences of an action, and that it is thus proper for parents to make a certain amount of use of their authority to stop their children from doing dangerous things. Your view is that if parents cannot persuade a child that a danger is excessive, the parents have no legitimate authority to stop the child. ---------------- It is NOT a matter of "legitimate" as in meaning authority-originated, for there IS NO SUCH authority! If your kid gets ****ed off at you even for a WRONG reason you can STILL wind up just as frozen to death on an ice floe, or the emotional equivalent. If you're so ****ing smart it is ALSO your duty to your species to NOT **** OFF YOUR KIDS! You CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY STOP THEM, so you need to stop pretending you are owed ANY "authority" if that offends them!! In other words, act sensibly, think pragmatically! Again, both points of view can be defended depending on a person's religious and philosophical perspective. But just claiming over and over that your perspective is the right one is unlikely to convince those of us who hold a different underlying belief. (And you might think about whether you would hold your principles yourself if you lived in a time and place where the dangers children face were a lot greater than they were in your own home.) ---------------------- No philosopphy about you controlling another means **** if THEY don't agree, so give that up right now! I hope I've given you some things to think about here, and that you actually will take the time to think about them. You have some perspectives that it would be interesting to discuss if you would be willing to set aside your anger and your certainty that you cannot possibly be wrong for long enough to have a real discussion. ------------------------ You will find my content always is more logical than yours. So if you want more logic, avail yourself of it yourself. I'll leave you with one last thought: the Golden Rule. Are you treating people on the other side of the issue the way you would want us to treat you? Are you listening to us and considering the possibility that we might have points worth considering the way you would like us to listen to you and consider the possibility that you might have points worth considering? Nathan ------------------------ Yup. and I decide what that is for ME, just as you do! Steve |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: 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. That's an interesting accusation, given your sterling efforts toward harmony in this newsgroup. You seem to be the one who views having everyone else give in as the only allowable path to harmony around here. Your definition of "harmony" seems to center around allowing children to run wild and do anything short of things that are outright criminal, with absolutely no regard either for how their actions affect others (including the parents) or to how their actions might cause harm to themselves later in life, if that is what they so desire. (And before you talk about how wonderfully children who are raised with freedom will invariably treat others, look at how you're treating me. That alone proves that it doesn't always work.) (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. Let me get this straight. If parents and children disagree, it is automatically the parents, the people who have lived more than twice as long and generally have a significantly higher level of maturity, that are wrong? I don't see that as making any sense at all. 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, In general, that is true. But when you love someone, and that person wants something that you know will be bad for them, you will generally hope that they do NOT get what they want. For example, if your children would decide that they wanted to take a dangerous illegal drug, would you want for them to get the drug or want for them not to get it? If you would want them to get it, I have the same contempt for you that you have toward parents who spank. Unfortunately, your model of human relationships seems to allow only for the type of love that gives people what they want without regard to whether or not it is good for them, not for the type of love that causes parents to want to make sure their children will NOT get what they want if it is bad for 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. Suppose the parents in a family want to go one place on vacation and the children want to go another. The kind of "middle ground" I speak of would come about if the parents decide to put their children's happiness first and have the family go where the children want, or if the children decide to put their parents' happiness first and agree for the family to go where the parents want, or if both the parents and the children place a high value on each other's happiness and the family agrees to go somewhere everyone would enjoy (if not necessarily their first choice). Clearly, the concept of "middle ground" can apply in that type of situation. The degree to which it applies in other situations is at least partly a matter of religious/philosophical perspective. From a philosophical perspective in which exercise of parental authority is considered legitimate only in regard to criminal behavior, and in which parents are viewed as "owing" their children free room and board without expecting anything at all in return, the only times when "middle ground" might apply are when children want something their parents are not regarded as "owing" them. From a perspective that regards parents as having legitimate authority over a wider range of issues, the concept of "middle ground" would come into play more often - for example, parents' allowing a child to do something that is more dangerous than they really want to allow because the child wants to do it so badly. 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" Who ever said that merely wanting something makes a child a a brat? There are two basic categories of behavior that I associate with the "spoiled brat" stereotype. One is the use of tantrums or similar types of psychological coercion to get what they want. (I see nothing inherently wrong with, "Please, please, please can I have that?" although it can become psychologically coercive if a child persists after being told no in the hope that a parent will agree just so the child will stop asking.) The other is the attitude that they can behave more or less however they want to with little regard to the possible danger to themselves or to how their behavior affects others and not expect to suffer any significant adverse consequences as a result. 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 ignore the possibility that something more than just an "insane or superstitious sense of order" might be at stake. You indulge in paranoid fantasy that children don't WANT you to be happy On the contrary, I made it very clear to Chris that that was NOT my assumption. Suppose a child would like to make his parents happy, but to do so would require not doing something that the child believes (not necessarily correctly) will make him happy. Further suppose the parents have a good reason not to want the child to do what the child thinks will make him happy - whether because they expect the long-term negative impact to outweigh the short-term happiness benefit, or because of a danger involved, or because of harm it would cause someone else (albeit not to a point of criminal behavior). That is the type of situation I'm trying to address. If the child chooses to largely ignore the parents' efforts at persuasion, it is not implausible that even though the child wants his parents to be happy, the child will choose to put his own happiness first and do what he thinks will make him happy in spite of the fact that he knows his parents won't like it. Or are you going to try to tell me that in non-punitive relationships, children will invariably put their parents' happiness ahead of their own in such situations? 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!!! Perfect, total, complete control over another human being is impossible. But in situations where a person knows that misbehavior will be caught and punished (for example, if a parent counts to three to get a child to do something or stop doing something), the level of control can be quite high. Obviously, as the risk of a child's getting caught and punished declines, so does the amount of control that can be exerted through punitive techniques. 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 parents actually use their highest-value negotiating goods as leverage - things like food, clothing, and shelter - they undermine their children's basic security. But your attitude, if I understand it correctly, seems to be that children are entitled to those things for free with absolutely no return obligations whatsoever to their parents, and that parents must go beyond those things if they want to offer their children something in negotiations. 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". If you truly believe that, why all the animosity toward parents who punish? After all, they are nothing more than machines doing what they were programmed to do, with absolutely no choice in the matter. Would you hold a bridge that collapsed and killed people accountable for its actions just because it succombed to the forces that caused it to collapse? If not, then why blame parents who merely succomb to the forces that made their actions inevitable? I'm snipping the rest of this (as I have chunks before now) because it's pretty much just rants and personal attacks. By the way, I might point out that I don't have any children of my own yet, although I hope to someday. So you might want to cool it with your presumptions about what my children feel, how they act, and what and my relationship with them must be like. I would also note that statistically, you have no basis for a claim that my children can be expected to hate me (at least beyond occasionally being angry at me for short periods) if I do choose the kind of parenting style I'm talking about here when and if I have children. Most children are punished more than you consider proper, yet as best I can tell, most children love their parents. Which implies that your views about how children react to being punished are way off target. Nathan |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
Nathan, you brushed off the list of responses from workshop
participants to Thomas Gordon's question about how they reacted to punitive control as children, saying it was "anecdotal." But you never answered my question to you: which of the behaviors on the list did *you* engage in as a spanked child? Don't say you didn't engage in any of them because I know you did; all of us raised the way you advocate did. You can call the list "anecdotal" all you like but I challenge you to find a single person raised by the methods you advocate who didn't exhibit at least several of the undesirable behaviors on the list as a result. These side effects are not consistent with your assertion that punitive control of children "by and large works well." Chris |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On 10 Jun 2004, Kane wrote: Chris has been running away from me since the Straus et al (1997) debacle. ---------------- No, we simply stand back when you ****, and you **** everywhere we take you, like a baby with projectile diarrhea. The only "****" on this newsgroup I see is the "****" that coming out of your mouth. If it's my ****, the question is how did it get to your mouth, "never-spanked" boy? ;-) I am for parents making up their mind. You are not. You wanted to tell them what to do. I don't. -------------- Yes, that's right, you understand it now, we're for the equal rights of children, and their defense by the Majority! No you don't! You are for the abusing of children! Your excuse is that you'll abuse them less then their parents! 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??? [] Nope! I would laugh if my parents said they are proud if I call other people "smelly-****". Is that how your mom parented you? :-) [] Yup! That is why I never used the "smelly-****" word. You must have NO-FEAR of your parents. ;-) [] Don't kid yourself. At least, I don't use the "**** you, Chris" with him. [] 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? ;-) [] And I am not you! I didn't say "**** you, Chris"! ;-) ---------------- You seem to be PROUD about your ignorant mental-verbal blockage! How can you use words you think are "dirty" and why do you think that crap?? Those are not my words. Those are words that "never-spanked" kids like you and Kane0 used! :-) Very puzzling. Your couth is turned inside out!! Steve Your mouth is connected to your...you know what! ;-) Doan |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: Doan wrote: 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 ---------------------- You're looking in the mirror again, you ****-mouthed peckerhead. Steve Nope, I was looking down the toilet, taking a dump, and I see MYSELF with my mouth wide open. Then, I started thinking, is that my **** coming out of my mouth? ;-) Doan ---------------- I wondered how you could look down the toilet while taking a dump unless your mouth was your asshole. Steve Nope! That's your mouth! ;-) Doan |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
How Children REALLY React To Control
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Doan wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote: 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". Then your brain must be filled with "****" instead of gray matter! :-) Even Chris can see that it's "verbally abusive". Are you calling Chris, M.A. in biology, stupid? ;-) No response from you, "never-spanked" boy? :-) 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 Then you are a coward to take responsibility for own behavior and have to use the "I was abused" excuse. Doan -------------------- That doesn't even make any sense. I never used any excuses. Steve Good! :-) Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 4th 04 11:26 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 16th 04 09:15 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 105 | November 30th 03 05:48 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Spanking | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |