Kane
October 6th 03, 06:14 AM
On 5 Oct 2003 21:52:47 -0700, (Robert T McQuaid) wrote:
(Kane) wrote in message >...
>
> > > Corporal punishment by parents is tempered by the
> > > parent's love for the child, and consequently is
> > > rarely abusive.
> >
> > Illogical assumption.
> >
> > Parents can punish in secret and there is no proof that
> > a parent "loves" a child they are punishing.
> >
> > One would first have to establish clear guidelines to
> > determine what "love" is and is not. My own casual
> > observation, if you will indulge me, is that something
> > other than love is taking place when a parent spanks or
> > punishes.
>
> Kane:
>
> The love of parents for their children requires no
> proof. It is a simple biological fact applying to all
> people, and even many animals.
Illogical, and irrelevant to the question.
You haven't defined "love." An urge to care for one's own offspring is
not always accompanied by either the capacity or immune to a change in
perspective.
If what you said was universally true there would be no child abuse or
infanticide.
The fact there is both supports my claim and denies yours.
All you've offered is a appeal to an emotion that no one is going to
deny of course, as they would not want to be seen as less than loving
of their own children nor entertain their parents were less then
loving of them.
Good Madison Avenue. Poor to awful academic method.
> One day when I went out a cat scared by my approach ran
> under my car. Since I wanted to drive away, I got down
> where I could see the cat and acted as mean as possible
> until the cat was even more scared and ran away. Then I
> could safely start my car without danger of killing the
> cat. Was I really hostile to the cat, or protective?
Hostile. She could have run right out into traffic and gotten hurt.
There is a famous study by Embry that showed exactly that. When
toddlers were punished for running toward traffic they had more
incidences of running toward traffic. When they were taught gently
with clearn directions and rewards for the wanted behavior, doing
something other than running toward traffic, incidences decreaed
markedly.
If you would behave protectively toward the cat you would, in this and
similar circumstances, develop a gentle persuasive set of behaviors.
Go and get her favorite catnip toy, offer treats she loves, pet her
and give her those ear scratches she so loves.
Next time she runs under the car you can simply call out, "Kitty
kitty" and she'll come to you and let you carry her into the house.
Then you can drive away.
Same with children. Punishment creates similar dangerous reactions.
Some long term.
> I have had many parents report similar use of punishment
> on their own children.
Yes I'm sure you do. People will tell others what they believe is
wanted.
> A child runs out into a
> dangerous street to play, and time-outs and removal of
> privileges will do nothing to stop the behavior.
Yes I know. That's why I'd never use them or suggest them. I preferred
the flat possum method. Google me and the words "flat possum" and
you'll see what worked for my children and one of the most powerful
ways of influencing and teaching children with near zero unwanted side
effects.
Mine keeps children safe and gives them high self esteeem.
> A
> spanking does.
No it doesn't. What it does is is shock the child, until the next
time they have a chance to get badly wanted attention.
Read the Embry study. He believed as you until he tested it.
> Personally, I live far enough from a
> road that I don't have to resort to such methods, but I
> can hardly condemn parents who do.
Your children then will never confront traffic, on foot? Odd.
How will they now not to go out in traffic if you don't spank them?
My response to those that answer me with, well they are too young to
understand so they have to be taugh................and I stop them
before they make even greater fools of themselves.
If they are too young to understand the danger of traffic is it not
logical they are too young to connect running toward traffic with
pain delivered by momma?
The answer?
When they are that young the parent does the thinking for them and
guards them. Fences, staying away from traffic, those little
harnesses, or wrist leashes. There are lots of ways to keep the child
alive until they are old enough to learn without humiliation and pain,
which doesn't very often teach what you want unless you are raising
thugs for the Mafia.
>
> Robert T McQuaid
> Orangeville Ontario Canada
> Anti-social worker
I know you are. It shows.
Read some brain scan studies of how children learn.
Read the Embry study.
Maybe it'll help you get over your distrust of social workers. And
maybe give your kids a shot at a better life.
Kane
(Kane) wrote in message >...
>
> > > Corporal punishment by parents is tempered by the
> > > parent's love for the child, and consequently is
> > > rarely abusive.
> >
> > Illogical assumption.
> >
> > Parents can punish in secret and there is no proof that
> > a parent "loves" a child they are punishing.
> >
> > One would first have to establish clear guidelines to
> > determine what "love" is and is not. My own casual
> > observation, if you will indulge me, is that something
> > other than love is taking place when a parent spanks or
> > punishes.
>
> Kane:
>
> The love of parents for their children requires no
> proof. It is a simple biological fact applying to all
> people, and even many animals.
Illogical, and irrelevant to the question.
You haven't defined "love." An urge to care for one's own offspring is
not always accompanied by either the capacity or immune to a change in
perspective.
If what you said was universally true there would be no child abuse or
infanticide.
The fact there is both supports my claim and denies yours.
All you've offered is a appeal to an emotion that no one is going to
deny of course, as they would not want to be seen as less than loving
of their own children nor entertain their parents were less then
loving of them.
Good Madison Avenue. Poor to awful academic method.
> One day when I went out a cat scared by my approach ran
> under my car. Since I wanted to drive away, I got down
> where I could see the cat and acted as mean as possible
> until the cat was even more scared and ran away. Then I
> could safely start my car without danger of killing the
> cat. Was I really hostile to the cat, or protective?
Hostile. She could have run right out into traffic and gotten hurt.
There is a famous study by Embry that showed exactly that. When
toddlers were punished for running toward traffic they had more
incidences of running toward traffic. When they were taught gently
with clearn directions and rewards for the wanted behavior, doing
something other than running toward traffic, incidences decreaed
markedly.
If you would behave protectively toward the cat you would, in this and
similar circumstances, develop a gentle persuasive set of behaviors.
Go and get her favorite catnip toy, offer treats she loves, pet her
and give her those ear scratches she so loves.
Next time she runs under the car you can simply call out, "Kitty
kitty" and she'll come to you and let you carry her into the house.
Then you can drive away.
Same with children. Punishment creates similar dangerous reactions.
Some long term.
> I have had many parents report similar use of punishment
> on their own children.
Yes I'm sure you do. People will tell others what they believe is
wanted.
> A child runs out into a
> dangerous street to play, and time-outs and removal of
> privileges will do nothing to stop the behavior.
Yes I know. That's why I'd never use them or suggest them. I preferred
the flat possum method. Google me and the words "flat possum" and
you'll see what worked for my children and one of the most powerful
ways of influencing and teaching children with near zero unwanted side
effects.
Mine keeps children safe and gives them high self esteeem.
> A
> spanking does.
No it doesn't. What it does is is shock the child, until the next
time they have a chance to get badly wanted attention.
Read the Embry study. He believed as you until he tested it.
> Personally, I live far enough from a
> road that I don't have to resort to such methods, but I
> can hardly condemn parents who do.
Your children then will never confront traffic, on foot? Odd.
How will they now not to go out in traffic if you don't spank them?
My response to those that answer me with, well they are too young to
understand so they have to be taugh................and I stop them
before they make even greater fools of themselves.
If they are too young to understand the danger of traffic is it not
logical they are too young to connect running toward traffic with
pain delivered by momma?
The answer?
When they are that young the parent does the thinking for them and
guards them. Fences, staying away from traffic, those little
harnesses, or wrist leashes. There are lots of ways to keep the child
alive until they are old enough to learn without humiliation and pain,
which doesn't very often teach what you want unless you are raising
thugs for the Mafia.
>
> Robert T McQuaid
> Orangeville Ontario Canada
> Anti-social worker
I know you are. It shows.
Read some brain scan studies of how children learn.
Read the Embry study.
Maybe it'll help you get over your distrust of social workers. And
maybe give your kids a shot at a better life.
Kane