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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:37:46 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote: Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003 Ray Drouillard wrote: Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000 [...] The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children might be placed." [...] Paul: For more context, http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and the report by the Canadian delegation http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm I said: I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of action against the corporal punishment of children in the home other than outrageously objectionable. Kane: You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture, your children at your whim? No one I believe said *anything* about bullying, humiliating, injuring, torturing or indeed *anything* about *at my whim*. Of course not. You apologists use the language to hid from the truth of your actions. You lost the capacity to discriminate as a child because of the pain and humiliation you suffered. It's a rather common occurance. You'll find it in studies on torture under ritual continuous torture. The victim becomes bonded to his or her torturer and will defend them. And will minimize the torture and even come to claim he or she deserved it. We were talking spanking, which has zero to do with any of the above. Sorry about your thinking errors. It's not your fault. It will be if you don't examine it further though. Tell me. What does a spanked child fell the first time they are spanked? The tenth time? The hundreth time? Kane: Fancy that. Yeah, fancy it. Fancy that you fancy that. I said: It seems to me a prime example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly address, Kane: On the contrary. On the contrary, on the contrary. On the contrary, on the contrary, on the contrary. This is absolutely unaddressable by science. It is addressable by science. Science addresses the unaddressable all the time. That's the point. It's to find new knowledge unavailable before. The wonder of technology is that it gives us finer tuned answer as time passes and it improves. You cannot possibly control hundreds or thousands of possibly important variables. Gosh. Have you looked down at your keyboard? Take a quick look over at your computer case...there is a cpu in there. And memory. Even your puny system can run simulations, models, that will control for hundreds of thousands of "possibly important variables." Scientists do this all the time now. If no control then no science. You are incorrect. Scientist do experiments to FIND the variables when they are unknown and computer modeling is now big time. They can calculate the forces in an auto crash and thousands of variables to build better restraint and crash systems. If you want to provide a cite to a study, I would be happy to critique it directly. I will. Go back to your childhood. Try to find out the truth instead of the nonsense that spanking drove your poor young mind to to survive and not lose the love of your parents. The brain scan studies show, almost as an aside, something we've known for most of human existance: if you are trying to learn something someone hitting you and or saying distracting humiliating things to you distracts. You don't learn what you wanted to learn, or what someone wanted to teach you. You learn how to survive in such circumstances...and that is usually survival tactics. Avoidance, violent retaliation, lying, bluffing, bullying, crying, whining, begging. And sneakiness. Kane: Science does address this issue. No, it does not address this issue at all. What addresses this issue is ideology. And, well, my ideology is a better (as in objectively better) than yours. No, you are wrong yet again. Brain scan studies show what has always been known, that when teaching someone something, if you distract them with pain and humiliation they will not learn what you wanted them to, but a fake a simulation of what you wanted them to learn. As I said above. Kane: Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, This is the fallacy that measurement of something equals science. I did not bring up science. I brought up measurement. YOU tried to segway off into "scientific" studies. I brought YOU back to the fact. So, tell me. If we can measure brain activity, find those places active during successful learning, and they show disruption when they are interferred with, do we need a scientific study of that measurement to understand them in the context of learning? Kane: and if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for? Simple, to punish my children for disobeying a rule. Then you have done half the job, and poorly at that. Children who stop disobeying the rule only have to wait until they are larger than you, or old enough to pull of sneakiness and not be caught. It's coming. It's call: "A TEENAGER." Happy parenting. Precisely so that they learn obedience to important commands, precisely for their own safety when they are of an age too young to reason about it. Now there is a death sentence if ever I've heard one. Blind obedience kills the dog across the road that thinks he heard, over traffic, "come" rather than "stay." Very few trainers are good enough to teach that dog to, under duress, do what is wanted or was taught by pain and humiliation. In fact, in the situation that you are trying to teach your child to be safe in...usually disruptive and full of tensions and indecisiveness....the child is likely to recall not the command but the pain and become MORE confused and likely to make the wrong choice. Every read the Embry study? Yet another research you won't want to believe. " Dr. Dennis Embry of the University of Kansas at Lawrence did a study of toddler street entries which found, to the author's considerable surprise, that toddlers who were spanked for running into the street did it more in the long run rather than less, while nonpunitive approaches were much more effective. The method which worked best to stop toddler street entries consisted of a combination of giving reward stickers for safe play, and defining allowed play areas in positive rather than negative terms ("safe players play on the sidewalk" rather than "don't go in the street"). " Ease to google up. A clear indicator...and this was many years ago, of how the human brain works in a child and how learning takes place. Real learning. Not "survival" reactions to pain and humiliation. It also is muchly to be preferred to the "time-out" in that forgiveness and forgetting are immediate. I'll one up you. Forgiveness should be even before the teaching. A child learns to listen and respond much more devotedly and closely, without distraction, to the parent that knows the child doesn't know and needs to learn. Forgetting should not be the goal. Time-outs aren't to teach anything. That's the momma's fallacy. It's for her to take a time from noisy distracting kids...no crime, but she shouldn't lie about it. Children get good at telling when parents are lying. They then learn to lie. Time-outs are rejections. Time-ins are for teaching...as in: "John, come here and sit by me. I want to explain to you why hitting is not okay in our family." Lesson learned. What lesson? Ever get a speeding ticket? Paid the fine? Never sped again? Case closed. Fraid not. They'll just sneak, or wait until they are Teens. Hope you have them adopted out by then. You won't like what you have produced. Punishment for learning the rules tends to turn out either compliant but sick little twirps, or violent mean brutes, or sneaks...who are capable of both when needed...the latter are often referred to as sociopaths. We don't do that again. Not while you are watching. Think about this. A teen confronted with an opportunity to engage in some forbidden behavior, possibly illegal, can have one of two memories to fall back on....a punitive, pain inflicting parent admonishing him, or a loving gentle parent who would be disappointed if he chose wrongly. Which do you think will win? And if you think you punishment model will, you have forgotten you own teen years. The time out strateches the whole thing into a drama, with no clear end and no clear lesson taught. That's why I consider it just another pointless punishment the child will learn only avoidance by. Kids in time out don't think about what they did and shouldn't do, but vengence..."I'll get her for this" and how to be more sneaky next time. And that is the problem. You have made the usual erroneous assumption of all spanking enthusiasts about non-spankers. You assume we are still punishers and have no other things in our bag of parenting tricks but punishment to stop unwanted behaviors. You can always tell a child which has not been disciplined. He's precisely the sort of child the "childproofing" one's house, and the schools and the daycares notion got started for---the idea that the children cannot be expected to behave themselves and opbey simple safety rules, and instead the world needs to be made safe for them. You are wrong. The need for the schools and daycares to child proof comes more for another reason. The child of punishers, let out into the world, who have been repressed in their need to explore the world, burst out in holy fits of exploration. Children that are taught lovingly obey the safety rules they can understand when they can understand them. Too young and the reponsibility is on the caregiver. That's why we have child restraints of various kinds. We are keeping the child alive long enough to age to the point of reason. I said: and then bolster social engineering programs with "studies" that do not show what they purport to show. Kane: "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children using physical and psychological pain. I spank my children, or did at a young age, in order to demand obedience at that age. Why would you "demand obedience" at all. If too young, safety is your job. If older they can learn by gentle means. In fact you have likely seriously retarded the development of a normal conscience and in it's place put fear of retaliation. That's one of the major problems in the world today. For their safety and in order to give them good ethical habits of respect for other people and for other people's property. They teens yet? Gone sneaky and or defiant yet? That's what you are in for. If you are cruel enough though you might finally get them out the door thinking you did well only to be inflicting them on the rest of the world. Kane: Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the woodshed. My children do have the freedom to disagree with and oppose me as soon as they reach an age of reason. If they have not reached that age how can you see training them like a dog to be teaching them anything? And how is normal development actions and behaviors prior to the age of reason, disagreeing or opposing you? They can't reason, they can't "oppose." Much of the mental and social ills in the world are caused by parents failing to see that the oppositional and defiant is nothing more than the force of nature in the child for an organism to explore and experiement. That is what play is for. It's the child's work and pain and humiliation are interfering in it. Direction is what is needed, and it need not be painful. Kane: Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to each other about what you are doing. The issue is whether you actually do teach the children so that the child, for instance, fastens his seat belt as a matter of habit, and stops upon command when he is about to run out into the street, or reaches by habit for his parent's hand in a supermarket parking lot. You don't fasten the seatbelt or supervise it? You let him get out of your control when he is too young to understand traffic hazards? You don't take HIS hand rather than expect him to take yours? You are expecting reasonable behavior from a child not able to reason cause and effect yet. Interesting. Hitting to teach is simply adding one more complexity to the complexity that children have when they are tiny. And sadly, each of your examples above can be more powerful taught using other painless and non humiliting methods. You really must read the Embry report. These things are not reasoned out with a young child, is the problem, and that is a problem that was well understood and addressed by the ancients. Yes, we have improved so much since those days. No children are killed under the wheels of chariots any more. No child is pulled away to their deaths by wolves in the supermarket aisles. No child falls from the chariot now that he has learned to fasten his seatbelt like a robot. What a lot of folks find is that despite all this "training" you think you are doing with pain, the child still hasn't got it down until they are old enough to reason it out, or are at earlier stage where they wish so hard to please mommy and daddy...about 5 yrsold. Hence, you begin in authority and discipline, You begin in fear and humiliation and you get the usual results. You begin as a patient teacher, forgiving, and willing to repeat the lesson or learn new ways of teaching it, and you have the child's trust for life. you inculcate good habits, Good habits come out of pain only when the pain is a result of a mistake the child made and can recover from. You giving them pain is a betrayal. and the child grows into free choice What free choice is there in having one's thoughts and behaviors driven by memories of pain and humiliation? The outcome is called neurosis. The child has to develop protective forgetfulness to be able to function. Compare it to the child that remembers a loving gentle parent that directed them rather than threatened them. with a default mode of good habits to sustain him and keep him safe while he grows. "default mode?" Your child is a computer? I said: In my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of adults. Kane: Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report they have been spanked. No, I think I am completely right. The number used to be about 100%. The leftish social activists have tried to equate spanking with abuse, and have consequently tried to shame it underground. As a result, many parents don't spank except as a last resort, by which time they are angrier and spank less consistently and in a less controlled way. You are wrong about 100% I grew up in about as working class as you can get. Spanking was not in everyone's repertoire of parenting methods. I knew many families it never happened in and some kids were stunned to learn others were spanked. It's a myth perpetrated by the media and those that can't rise above bullying to parent. And the amount of abusive spanking in an uncontrolled way was about the same then. So are you saying that spanking then should be something other than a last resort? Kane: Children are being spanked at at least the same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was escalated to injury. Sorry, but your statistic neither shows this (since the survey surveys adults) and there is no evidence that abuse comes from spanking. I don't need much more evidence than my eyes and ears to know what comes from spanking. And what apoligists will claim about it. I see a child that is running toward the street and momma runs after him and grabs him and smacks his butt. If he's old enough he wouldn't have run toward the street. If he's too young to understand, the spanking isn't going to do a thing to teach him. Kane: The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense. Nope. It comes from kids not being disciplined and, consequently, disrespecting the property and person of other people. I know hundreds of completely unspanked children. They are highly respectful of others property and persons. It is the spanked and humilitated child that has the problem you claim. My wife, a veterinarian, has story upon story to tell of children coming into the exam room with parents and Fido, and children making noise and climbing all over mega-expensive equipment while parent is trying to tell vet what is wrong with Fido. And, interrupting every moment or two to tell kids to stop doing whatever it is they are doing, and the kids just ignoring the command. This comes from no discipline. No expectation that good behaviour *will* happen or else. And you are going to come up with proof, other than your opinion, those children weren't spanked at home? Or right outside after they left? That story is typical of spanked and humiliated children. They bust out in public. Kane: Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child. I seriously doubt it, and doubt you can give *any* study to show it. I doubt you can give any to show that spanked children are better behaved. You just "know" it, don't you? I said: It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly right to oppose this Convention. Kane: What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to liberals? Sorry, I do not use "liberal" to mean "social progressives". I am liberal. Kane: I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other conservatives that agree with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They spank. A majority spank at some point or the other. The issue is whether it is wrong and shameful to do so, It is wrong and shameful, as it is shame making. A child need not be ashmed of his curious nature, or her experimentation, and each instance is an opportunity to teach, not train. so that spanking ends up being associated with last-ditch frustration and anger. Or whether it is a line of first resort, in which case it is controlled and immediate and, well, attention-getting. And if one has a small repertoire of teaching skills that require no pain or humiliation or punishment at all and work everytime? You are making an excuse for what you lack. It is not hard to outthink a child, unless one is too reliant on spanking as a first resort. Kane: Have a good one, Mike. You, too, Kane. Mike Morris ) Kane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
A great article on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | February 28th 04 11:27 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 142 | November 16th 03 07:46 PM |