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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
I didn't say that I wanted that or expected it for "bringing up
children," simply for engaging in parenting methods that have well known risks attached. It's very hard, for instance, to leave a bruise or break a bone by redirecting a child's behaviors verbally. Not so hard to do with swats, smacks, paddlin's, and pops. Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100% effective with his or her children? For some parents it's obviously not though. Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not legitimate CP but parental abuse. Not ALL "swats, smacks, paddlin's and pops" would constitute abuse though, in fact in most cases I'd venture that they (spankings) don't. In many of those others I do not ask for roads signs that show absolute boundaries. I do in spanking for a very sensible reason: the injuries to children that have occurred as a result of CP, especially when it has gotten out of hand and the children have been taken by state and the parent in in jail for criminal assault. In that case, the boundary has clearly been passed. Exactly where the boundary is, that's not always easy to determine and may vary from child to child and family to family, but the ultra-extreme cases aren't hard to identify. I can sit around all day with just about any issue in parenting and dream up tactic after tactic. I tend though to go to what I have proven over the years to be not only the easiest AND most fun, but the most effective in my child learn SELF control, over seeking out OTHER control. Since children are immature and need some clearcut external controls en route to hopefully gradually developing internal self-control, different parents will use different tactics to modify their children's behavior. Whatever worked for you and your children, agreeing that "worked" often isn't completely determined until after the fact, sometimes much later, that's your personal experience. What you may think of as it "works" I might think of as having set the child on a path of control battles with you appearing to win but they just going to grow into a teen...and you know what happens then. 0:- That's one of the judgements that a parent has to make to the best of his or her ability, for his or her particular child(ren). Just because the eventual outcome is uncertain doesn't mean that the parent shouldn't do his or her best. A parent may listen to the perspectives of others, but the ultimate decision will be his or hers. Teenagers can usually be expected to push against boundaries and test limits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually engaging in "control battles," in many cases they actually want to know that there are still some restraints on their behavior. Wrapped up in, possibly without your conscious awareness, is the insinuation that someone else is going to tell them how to parent. I was stating almost the opposite, that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to try to determine what works best for his or her individual children. No "expert" can tell a parent that, although I certainly don't oppose parents exposing themselves to general guidelines suggested by others. But you might consider giving them and the supporting arguments I make without assume I'm trying to force you. Or did you inheret a tendency to enter into control battles and power struggles somewhere, sometime, from someone? It never occurred to me that you (or anyone) could "force" your will on me over the internet. A "power struggle" in cyberspace? That's a ridiculous concept, isn't it? Well, I would presume, as a motorist would, that should a speed limit, or spanking limit would be modified by conditions neither would accelerate and to hard turns. Using the analogy of speed limits and common sense, unfortunately many drivers don't use common sense when dealing with posted speed limits. As for the use of CP, as in numerous other judgement-requiring areas of child-rearing practices, ideally parents would use good judgemen and common sense. (Sadly, some people appear to be short of common sense, many of them especially when driving.) Who knows, I might want to spank my kids one day. 'Course now in their forties they might think me a bit weird, but hey, if it's so good why wouldn't it still work to teach them things. If you can't discuss the subject seriously... It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only. Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about my beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure speculation on your part, isn't it? My point was that a parent's approach to child discipline, including potentially using CP, is something that depends on the child(ren) and the family situation, and that there are numerous other apects of child-rearing that also require individual parental judgement. I'll give you an example of another though, that I want clear guidelines about. On some things there are fairly clear guidelines, some established strictly by biology and others by societal norms. but for some reason this area of whalin' on a kids body and calling it a semi polite trick name, "spanking," doesn't want to lend itself to the same kind of considered reasoning and care in choice making. To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different from mere "spanking," I see a clear distinction that's more than a "polite trick name." However, I would agree 100% that any parent who CAN'T tell the difference should eschew completely the use of CP as part of their child-rearing approach. As it is I always feel icky not pasting a spanker in the head, hard, for what they are doing to children. But then I'm a peaceable sort. So am I, but it wouldn't matter if I were Jack the Ripper in a cyberspace discussion. Even in RL, I don't "paste" anyone who disagrees with me on societal issues, including child-rearing approaches. (Especially things like child-rearing strategy, which in some areas is quite individualized in terms of its application and effects.) Thanks for working on this problem with me. It don't see it lending itself to a simple, objective solution, but I don't mind discussing it respectfully. {Hamilton} |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Hamilton1794 wrote: I didn't say that I wanted that or expected it for "bringing up children," simply for engaging in parenting methods that have well known risks attached. It's very hard, for instance, to leave a bruise or break a bone by redirecting a child's behaviors verbally. Not so hard to do with swats, smacks, paddlin's, and pops. Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100% effective with his or her children? For some parents it's obviously not though. Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some *children* it's obviously not though." *emphasis mine It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your meaning? Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not legitimate CP but parental abuse. I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which to debate your next claim. Not ALL "swats, smacks, paddlin's and pops" would constitute abuse though, in fact in most cases I'd venture that they (spankings) don't. Legally speaking in this country, that is absolutely true. An exception to that is in some school settings. In some anything up to heavy long lasting bruising with objects is permissable. In others no paddling, or for that matter, form of CP is legal by BOE and state school superindendent edict. In fact in many states if not most it is legal to spank and leave marks that fade in x amount of time. Now in one state it's legal, apparently, to leave marks that don't fade at all, or so some would lead us to believe. The media was unclear in the exact workering of the judicial finding. I'm not sure they even tried to be exact. In many of those others I do not ask for roads signs that show absolute boundaries. I do in spanking for a very sensible reason: the injuries to children that have occurred as a result of CP, especially when it has gotten out of hand and the children have been taken by state and the parent in in jail for criminal assault. In that case, the boundary has clearly been passed. Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where it is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child? Exactly where the boundary is, that's not always easy to determine and may vary from child to child and family to family, but the ultra-extreme cases aren't hard to identify. Precisely. And you won't find me fruitlessly debating the ultra, or even plain old vanilla extreme cases. That's a subject for another newsgroup or thread. One strictly on "abuse" as defined by law, not "abuse" as I consider it rendered in our CP debating context. As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible -- as you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many very likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it, and some strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies, and that no non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly, and that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy, wouldn't it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even give it a try? Personally I'm a purest. The more I practiced non CP parenting, the more obvious it became to me that the powerstruggles of PUNISHMENT parenting, punishment of any kind, was pointless, confusing for the child, an a blow to my self esteem as a man...I refuse to control children in a cowardly way. I prefer more respectful methods that are in tune with their developmental needs of the moment. I can sit around all day with just about any issue in parenting and dream up tactic after tactic. I tend though to go to what I have proven over the years to be not only the easiest AND most fun, but the most effective in my child learn SELF control, over seeking out OTHER control. Since children are immature and need some clearcut external controls en route to hopefully gradually developing internal self-control, different parents will use different tactics to modify their children's behavior. I should hope. There are so many variables to consider. Whatever worked for you and your children, agreeing that "worked" often isn't completely determined until after the fact, sometimes much later, that's your personal experience. Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I did when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No matter the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance, from willing to eager. I even generalized it for about 5 years to a population of emotionally disturbed adolescent boys...ages 12 to 16, roughly. About every 18 months a boy would graduate from the program to be replaced. We worked with 8 at a time. While of course I had to speak and act using different modalities, more gentle with some, boisterous and playful with others, the principles held true. Learning how to actually listen to validate the others communication was key. But followed very closely by a sense of humor and a complete surrender to the idea that everything that boy did was for him to learn. That nature drove him to steal from the local store, as surely as it would make his teeth ache so as to teach him to keep up good dental hygiene. One of course was acceptable behavior...failing to brush his teeth. It didn't effect society...and with these boyd how they effected society was a biggy. So the other, the stealing, need a bit more respect on my part. And I respected the hell out of his need to steal. So I had him do some more stealing. Of course with the shop keeper in on it. I had that boy steal until he was so pukin' tired of the fun of stealing he started looking for other ways to have fun. And not once was I mean or cruel, or putting any shame on him. I didn't even power struggle. I would ask him politely to do the theft exercise. I would plead if he refused. I'd beg. I'd offer to bribe him. His stealing behavior, and that of other boys extinguished completely in approximately 6 weeks. At that point he was ready for a sit down and a discussion of what he thought was going on for him during his stealing phase..what in nature and his life experience did he think was motivating the stealing. As he explored it he would come upon good social lessons HE pulled out of the whole experience. HE would bring up the damage his behavior could cause and did in the past. Sometimes I had to provide a shoulder to cry on. Do you see where I'm going here? It's not rocket science, it's just looking at the issue of parenting concerning unwanted or wanted behaviors in a very new way than we are accustomed to. I have seen families that do this naturally though. They are highly learning focused. They love learning so they see everything the child does as a "teachable moment" even if it try to put the kitty in the microwave. What you may think of as it "works" I might think of as having set the child on a path of control battles with you appearing to win but they just going to grow into a teen...and you know what happens then. 0:- That's one of the judgements that a parent has to make to the best of his or her ability, for his or her particular child(ren). Just because the eventual outcome is uncertain doesn't mean that the parent shouldn't do his or her best. Boy, I'd be the last person to say they shouldn't. I know for a fact that at first learning to parent without pain and punishment can be hard work. It's not so much they can't see what to do, but they FEEL so funny doing it..that they think it won't work. Are they ever stunned when it does. Sitting down your kid that just slammed his little sister one with a book, putting our arm around him and opening with, "Honey, now I know you must have something upsetting you. I want to hear what you think," sends the control freaks over the edge when they see or hear me say that. They are usually completely misunderstanding behaviorism and the insist I'm just rewarding the kid for hitting his sister and when he wants my attention again he'll hit her again....and I say YES, IN A HOUSEHOLD THAT IS POWERSTRUGGLE AND PAIN BASED PARENTING CONTROLLED. And absolutely not in one that is based on relationship quality and trust. I got thrown into the lioness den once. A child care worker in the teen female unit came down ill over the weekend. I lived closest so they asked me to step in until they could locate some worker staff to come in. Those girs...wow what reputations. The boys were all the pussies, compared to them. They were mean. Well, 30 minutes into attending to them, bingo a hassle broke out in the rec room. I know a test when I see one. They all were watching me like the little predators they had been taught to be. Even the girls fighting were peekin' at me more than lookin' at each other. I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said was, honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place was flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms, and I was looking for kleenex. Do I know my kids? Boys or girls, they want to BE who they think they are. I played at "how to be a tough man" with the boys, and with the girls, how to be vulerable sensitive women. If I'd gotten in their faces they would have likely cut me up. There's no way to completely remove weapons from folks that want them. I'm still here. No scars. And I didn't spank or punish anyone. A parent may listen to the perspectives of others, but the ultimate decision will be his or hers. Gotta be. Teenagers can usually be expected to push against boundaries and test limits, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually engaging in "control battles," in many cases they actually want to know that there are still some restraints on their behavior. That is a full bore paradox. You just described a control battle to a tee. Of course they want to know the boundaries and they'll fight you to make you show them. See...a control battle. YOU'D rather, I hope, at 15 or so, be having them know and respect the boundaries. Their brains are too friend by hormones. All 15 year olds are divisible by five. Trust me on this. They wish to be lead around a little, but just like a three year old, they will pout and stomp and say "no!" quite emphatically. I just ignore the behavior just as I did with them at 3. And I say that classic line all school teachers know, "Nevertheless, etc. " I don't have to punish, just be compliant when mother nature gives the kid, and by proxy, ME a slap upside the haid. Usually I woke up in time with thoughts like, "oh! oh! oh yeah, it's time for demanding indepence stage 7, now where did I put he car keys and my wallet, and the bucket and gear to wash the car?" Yer not going to tell me you can't figure out what's comin' in that inner rumination, are yah? R R R R R ... Wrapped up in, possibly without your conscious awareness, is the insinuation that someone else is going to tell them how to parent. I was stating almost the opposite, that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to try to determine what works best for his or her individual children. Yep. And this is the telling point, below. No "expert" can tell a parent that, although I certainly don't oppose parents exposing themselves to general guidelines suggested by others. Actually there are times when nothing less than an expert suffices. Children ar all born different. Some are wired so that they will not slide into gear...their development will be weirded out. They are either overractive to all stimuli, or placid like a little doorknob. All efforts of the parent fail to break them out of the stuckness in their "mis" behavior. I know half a dozen experts that not only know whats going on but how to move the kid out of it in a few weeks with some different ( not genius or terribly special ) therapies for the parent to use. They are actually things parents do with kids .. but in these cases applied differently. On regular parenting and "experts" I have this to say. If I want to learn to drive a car the farm boy mehthod worked great for me. I got in out in the pasture, and struggled along as my dad verbally told me what to do. I got to be a pretty darn good driver eventually. Trouble is, I wanted to be more. I bought my own car...a different story. Then I got to rebuilding. Then I got to building race cars of various kinds. Now I had a need for driving skills one hell of a lot more demanding than my pasture learned skills. Now we seem to be willing to take lessons and read books to learn to cook, sew, fix things around the house, play a mean game of pinochle, knock a little white ball farther and straighter with a stick, and by golly even to learn to do better health and nutritional care of ourselves and our children. Why we'll even go an bribe the local community college to hire someone to come in and teach us all kinds of things and we look for that teacher that knows how to do it better than use, with no embarassment or shame over asking an "expert." See where we are headed here? 0:- What IS it about "discipline" which really shouldn't be seen as anything but the original meaning of the word, that makes us go all stiff and hostile when someone says it might be a good idea to ask an expert? Do you really think there are any parents that can't benefit by the teaching of another parent, or someone that's mastered the elements of parenting, all parts, not just discipline, who know more than they do? Or do all auto drivers have equal knowledge and skill? It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it. Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us makes us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our first resort, like it was the holy grail. Doesn't that seem just a tad silly given how we learn everything else by study and asking 'experts' one way or the other. You did when you were little. Your expert was your dad, adn your mother, or uncle. Someone that knew more than you. Did you fight against asking and get all huffy? But you might consider giving them and the supporting arguments I make without assume I'm trying to force you. Or did you inheret a tendency to enter into control battles and power struggles somewhere, sometime, from someone? It never occurred to me that you (or anyone) could "force" your will on me over the internet. A "power struggle" in cyberspace? That's a ridiculous concept, isn't it? You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political tract, if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or argument, whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a power struggle. There's nothing ridiculous about that is there? Or do you have a defintion of power struggle I'm unfamiliar with? Would you define the term please? If I am correct then this quote, from you would indicate where I thought I say you struggling for a position of power: " So why would a person with "traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood" possibly be on a newsgroup with this name? Why intentionally read about something if it traumatizes you? {Hamilton} " Even the most simply examination would uncover an attempt to take control in a way that defied reality. The reality is that people react differently to what they read, what they hear, and what they witness. We are usually far more emotionally reponsive to what we hear than what we read, and far more to what we witness. No? When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the unfairness of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing. I can read this ng all day, and any strong emotion evoked I can easily set aside. I do NOT listen to Chris' tape. I heard a few seconds of it, got the point and closed my browser window. I do not like children to be hit. It causes me to tence up, to have some empathetic responses, and an the experience some of the terror they feel at this giant who was sent to protect them coming to hurt them. Well, I would presume, as a motorist would, that should a speed limit, or spanking limit would be modified by conditions neither would accelerate and to hard turns. Using the analogy of speed limits and common sense, unfortunately many drivers don't use common sense when dealing with posted speed limits. How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful and risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking, riding transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway. As for the use of CP, as in numerous other judgement-requiring areas of child-rearing practices, ideally parents would use good judgemen and common sense. (Sadly, some people appear to be short of common sense, many of them especially when driving.) Yep. I haven't a thing to debate there. Who knows, I might want to spank my kids one day. 'Course now in their forties they might think me a bit weird, but hey, if it's so good why wouldn't it still work to teach them things. If you can't discuss the subject seriously... No, I can't. Spanking, like death, is so serious that I joke about the former like others do about the latter. Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence, "If you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor, OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power struggle? It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only. Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about my beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure speculation on your part, isn't it? No. I was looking directly at your posted words. My point was that a parent's approach to child discipline, including potentially using CP, is something that depends on the child(ren) and the family situation, and that there are numerous other apects of child-rearing that also require individual parental judgement. Yep, and we are talking about one of them, hopefully. The use of various discipline methods, spanking being the central point. And in those some have risks as well, and we consult experts, and we avoid doing things that might harm. I ask that spanking and CP, and even "punishment" be given no more or less than the attention and concern, and ethical considerations, other areas of parenting are given. I'll give you an example of another though, that I want clear guidelines about. On some things there are fairly clear guidelines, some established strictly by biology and others by societal norms. Yep. One doesn't change much without a lot of time or a genetic sport popping into the gene pool. The other can change in a flash with just a law passed. I prefer that social norms change by the force of moral suasion. It's so much less painful. I do, however, recognize that sweeping social changes were preceeded by activism and in time, laws. Women's sufferage, slavery, children's rights. Working conditions. None of these are fixed in place. They could change even more. but for some reason this area of whalin' on a kids body and calling it a semi polite trick name, "spanking," doesn't want to lend itself to the same kind of considered reasoning and care in choice making. To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different from mere "spanking," Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use terms like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking" says? I see a clear distinction that's more than a "polite trick name." I don't see that kind of distinction at all. The definition of spanking and beating, in this population, is exremely flexible. I've seen children dripping blood that the parent claimed they were such disciplining with a "spanking." And, more humorously, (forgive me) I've seen mothers go after a kid running away yelling, "you are going to get a shellackin' when I catch you young man,": only to barely pat the kid when he's caught. However, I would agree 100% that any parent who CAN'T tell the difference should eschew completely the use of CP as part of their child-rearing approach. I'm suggesting much more. I'm suggesting the entire issue of "spanking" end, and soon, from the total lack of it as a "parenting" tool or methods or raising a child. If there are other tools that work with all children that can be reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all? The only thing we have to do is learn those other ways of responding. It's not really all that hard. In fact those that have done it, for the most part, find a really joyful experience. I watched a tough ol' boy that was a body and fender man, and an excon. When he got through part of a class, he went home and came back, and in the middle of describing it said, "and I never have to hit my little girl again." and we all needed, as did he, our hankies. His love for her had made him so determind to 'raise her righ' that he had been using pain on her. What was the "trick" he learned? Why something a hick like him would know about....he ducktaped the phone button down so the little girl could pick up the reciever and "talk to grammah." From that one little thing his brain lite up and he was waaay ahead of some college educated folks in the class. How to teach just flowed out of him, once he got it. As it is I always feel icky not pasting a spanker in the head, hard, for what they are doing to children. But then I'm a peaceable sort. So am I, but it wouldn't matter if I were Jack the Ripper in a cyberspace discussion. Even in RL, I don't "paste" anyone who disagrees with me on societal issues, including child-rearing approaches. (Especially things like child-rearing strategy, which in some areas is quite individualized in terms of its application and effects.) Thanks for working on this problem with me. It don't see it lending itself to a simple, objective solution, but I don't mind discussing it respectfully. {Hamilton} I do see a simple objective solution to spanking, but as yet I do not want it. Like other countries have done we could pass a law. With us it's not going to be a passive moral appeal like Sweden or other countries though. With we Americans it would have to have some serious teeth in it, probably offense graduated. We are that stubborn and individualistic. I like us for that. And I like us for so often in the past being close to the frontiers on social issues. I'd like us to get back that place....by addressing this issue without laws having to be made. In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a child that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence. They are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child. I've known them. Their children are lovely and grow to be lovely people. Kane |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Kane (pohakuyakokane) on child-rearing:
Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100% effective with his or her children? For some parents it's obviously not though. Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some *children* it's obviously not though." Either way would have the same meaning, but "For some parents dealing with some children it's obviously not enough" would be putting it completely, if that's important to you. It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your meaning? I'm saying that some parents find the use of legitimate CP as one effective part of their child-rearing behavior modification methodology, and that it's their perogative to use it if they so desire. It's a parent's job to determine what child-rearing tactics work best for his or her particular child(ren). Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not legitimate CP but parental abuse. I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which to debate your next claim. I've been reading some of the posted debate here, and it seems that "stating the obvious" (like this) is often necessary to try to avoid being labeled as a "child abuser." Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where it is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child? I'm not sure that there's a clearcut legal boundary, and as a matter of pragmatic practice I'd venture that a loving, caring parent who elects to use CP for behavior modification purposes must be able to rely on using his or her own good judgement in relation to his or her child(ren). I would opine that spanking should not be done while the parent is in a state of anger, and also that a parent who doesn't trust his or her own judgement on the matter shouldn't be engaging in CP of his or her child(ren). As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible -- as you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many very likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it, I don't know how many actually have "crossed over it," it seems like it's the exceptions, the abusers, that get the public notice. some strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies, I agree that this is pathetic parenting practice, those people are bizarre (if not outrightly sadistic) in using CP on near-newborn infants. no non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly, and that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy, wouldn't it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even give it a try? No legitimate CP parenting method has done those things either, they're obviously "over the line." Parents should use whatever nonabusive child-rearing methods they find appropriate and effective for their children, using their best judgement. I'd certainly agree that "non-CP methods" should be used, with or without legitimate CP accompanying them, based on the parents' discretion. Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I did when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No matter the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance, from willing to eager. I've heard some people make that claim for spanking as well, and I'm not in a position to dispute your claims or theirs, but I do believe that there's considerable variance among different children and in different situations. It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it. Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us makes us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our first resort, like it was the holy grail. Most people I know who spank (or spanked) their children don't (or didn't) appear to be "uptight" about it, they just consider(ed) it part of being a loving, caring parent even though they generally don't (or didn't) find it enjoyable. They do (or did) find it effective as a behavior-modification tactic, however. In the vast majority of cases, it is (or was) considered only one method and they employ(ed) others as well, when they feel (or felt) that those methods would be more effective or appropriate. You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political tract, if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or argument, whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a power struggle. I have no interest in "power struggles" on internet newsgroups, and I don't consider this kind of a discussion (or even a spirited debate) as a "power struggle," to me it's just an exchange of ideas and information. When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the unfairness of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing. Maybe some people use the internet to help them resolve traumatic experiences from earlier in their lives, but I have no interest in doing that. Words can only have the power that one gives to them, so I really don't have to "disempower" anyone's cyber-words on the internet as I haven't empwered them in the first place. (Merely reading them with an open albeit skeptical mind isn't my concept of empowering them.) How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful and risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking, riding transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway. Sometimes driving is the best, most effective way of reaching a destination, and under certain conditions it might be safer than some of the alternatives you've mentioned. Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence, "If you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor, OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power struggle? You should take it at face value, that I perceived that you had no real intention of spanking your adult daughter, which is the ONLY meaning that I intended. It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only. Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about my beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure speculation on your part, isn't it? No. I was looking directly at your posted words. Then you'll have to "directly" quote my "posted words" wherein I claimed to be "clever." To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different from mere "spanking," Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use terms like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking" says? They might say "whalin' on a (kid's) butt," I suppose, but "body" creates an entirely different meaning for me. Obviously, the nomenclature isn't critically important, it's what is actually done that draws the distinction between child abuse and legitimate CP. If there are other tools that work with all children that can be reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all? I'd suppose that it's a question of what "works best" or "works most effectively" in certain varying situations, that parents are responsible for deciding using their own best judgement. In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a child that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence. They are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child. Well, I've admonished children for misbehaving on occasion and I never felt either guilty or abusive about doing so. I can't say that the children appeared to be emotionally traumatized or damaged either. I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said was, honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place was flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms, and I was looking for kleenex. Sometimes it was like that, an expression of disappointment in their misbehavior (and an implication that it shouldn't be repeated), but I've never felt "ashamed" of doing it. (Hamilton) |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Hamilton:
See alt.support.child-protective-services Several threads in here are cross posted there as well. Kane thinks he has me wrapped up in a giant ad hominem that he drags out in EVERY other issue, as you noticed. To him and his cronies, it matters NOT that a CPS caseworker TOLD A HUGE LIE in order to MAKE A CASE and tear up my family. The lie was used to cast sickly innuendo over otherwise innocent family activities. Child Protection agencies nationwide, and even in several other countries, have had a growing rash of tragic incidents that even the friendly (to them) news media cannot ignore. Even the US Congress itself held some emergency investigations after a New Jersey discovery. Kane was or IS a beneficiary of the Child Protection INDUSTRY and so is intellectually prostitute to them. Like most CPS caseworkers he is against any and ALL forms of spanking, and they will stop at nothing to enforce this opinion on families, despite the fact that spanking is legal in all 50 states, and a large Federal Court (huge district out west) ruled that even if MARKS are left, SPANKING is not what Child Protection agencies are about. Kane has claimed expertise in psychology several times, but only recently denied this. It was laughable, really, since he swore openly for over a YEAR on the newsgroups. Kane and Dan pretend to be after reform of Child Protection agencies, but they seem to want to give Child Protection yet another twenty years to correct their corruption and abuses from the INSIDE. This is certainly a MINORITY opinion. Congress, caseworkers themselves, Social Work and Child Protection experts mostly all concur that reform from within has had it's chance for 20 years now and it has failed miserably. Nobody but a complete stooge who somehow benefits financially, thinks CPS should be given more time to change from within. They have had 20 years, numerous court orders, Federal Consent Decrees, many many disasters that cost lives or destroyed families over false accusations. The Child Protection INDUSTRY has evolved into a threat to families and Americans as monolithic as the Industrial Military Complex that Eisenhower warned us about as he left office. The concept of guilt, innocence or truly protecting kids has taken a back seat to the need for AGENCY scores, in terms of numbers of kids in the system BECAUSE the Federal Grant Money that funds these agencies is based on the numbers of kids in the system. There are severe problems with an agency culture that is so jaded and presumes guilt even in families where they know full well it's a lie. The Constitutional checks and balances do not apply in Juvenile (family) court. They can remove your child forever over what they KNOW is flimsy or false, and you have fewer rights than some person accused of stealing a candy bar. Rather than looking at child removal as a VERY SERIOUS THING, comparable to a murder charge, Constitutional Rights are avoided because nobody is CRIMINALLY CHARGED. The Liberty Interest of a family in being a family is not considered to be as compelling as a person losing the Liberty Interest of walking around outside of a prison. That's how families are cheated out of their Liberty Interests and their Constitutional Rights, every day in Juvenile Courts. Kane will SWEAR, insult, use innuendo, lie, distort, mislead or anything else he can think of in the hope to smear me and kill my message. As one person put it, they "blow the same bone" at me on every single topic, issue, subtopic, and they hope their childish antics will win out. What they really do is reveal what complete STOOGES they are with the same insults brought up in regard to EVERY topic. It's an attempt to shout me down, basically. That's why Kane did it here, as everywhere else. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Greegor wrote: Hamilton: See alt.support.child-protective-services Several threads in here are cross posted there as well. Kane thinks he has me wrapped up in a giant ad hominem that he drags out in EVERY other issue, as you noticed. It's you that keeps spewing about your "case" which of course isn't even yours, but that of a child and her mother. To him and his cronies, it matters NOT that a CPS caseworker TOLD A HUGE LIE in order to MAKE A CASE and tear up my family. greegor, we are shocked, absolutely schocked that a CPS worker would lie about you. Now as for the truth................. R R R R R .... How many convictions for Domestic Abuse were there again? Like you couldn't walk after the first one? The lie was used to cast sickly innuendo over otherwise innocent family activities. Like getting in that bathroom every chance you had while the little girl was in the shower? Towel boy, shampoo girl, and cold showers for punishment routines. MMMmmmhhhhhmmmmmm.....innocent familiy activities. How DID you convince Lisa to let you stay home ildly sitting around dreaming up yet other ways to abuse the child? Child Protection agencies nationwide, and even in several other countries, have had a growing rash of tragic incidents that even the friendly (to them) news media cannot ignore. Even the US Congress itself held some emergency investigations after a New Jersey discovery. Yep..the power of the media is not to be triffled with. If you are small time tin pot propagandist your first best hope is the media. If it bleeds it leads. Kane was or IS a beneficiary of the Child Protection INDUSTRY and so is intellectually prostitute to them. If I am or was why would that make me intellectually prostitute to them? Surely you don't think Doug, the MSW state child protection worker is intellectually prostitute to them, do you? Like most CPS caseworkers Not a caseworker, never been a caseworker, and you couldn't make me be one with gun to my head. he is against any and ALL forms of spanking, Yes I am. I've even argued with caseworkers that themselves were spankers about this very thing...but not to convince them to remove children for parental spanking. I just was stunned they would be personally in favor of spanking as a child rearing practice. Interestingly the more education they had the less inclinded toward spanking they were. and they will stop at nothing to enforce this opinion on families, Sure they'll stop. They know what you are going to write below. They and I went over it many times, as many of the relatives I helped were believers in spanking. I kind of had to mediate the issue. despite the fact that spanking is legal in all 50 states, and a large Federal Court (huge district out west) ruled that even if MARKS are left, SPANKING is not what Child Protection agencies are about. Yep. Signs o' the times, greegor. Aren't you glad your opinion appears to be prevailing? But then we've seen bigger issues change in the past. 0:- Kane has claimed expertise in psychology several times, but only recently denied this. First I claimed, then I denied? No, I claimed, then I denied having ever said I had any particular credentials. That's not denying my expertise. It was laughable, really, since he swore openly for over a YEAR on the newsgroups. You see to be ****in' wed to the swearing issue, greegor. Something put a bug up your butt about that? What is it about swearing that bothers you? Say compared to whipping a child? Kane and Dan pretend to be after reform of Child Protection agencies, Yep, and we are years ahead of you and your cronies. but they seem Lots of things "seem" to be one way or the other to you, but you are nearly 100% wrong 100% of the time. In fact you are amazing. Tell me what stocks would you buy if you had any money. I'll avoid them. to want to give Child Protection yet another twenty years to correct their corruption and abuses from the INSIDE. Nope, we both work on their failings on a day to day basis. In addition I go after them directly at all levels and by lobbying. Dan and I each do what we do best, rather than waste time doing your screeching spastic monkey act. This is certainly a MINORITY opinion. No, actually there is a minority opinion that would make child protection an exceedingly dangerous NATIONAL issue, with our everlovin' feds setting all the standards. And trust me, once they have all the power to define abuse taken away from the states, DON'T GET BACK IN THAT BATHROOM. Because if you think Iowa was mean to you, you ain't seen nothin' until you've seen how federal laws can screw up society. Balance in all things, greegor...and issues of family, child rearing, and showering our girlfriends little daughter's best stay local...where it was intended to be. You see, if it's your neighbor trying to pass insane laws you can get right in his face usually with a short drive to the state capitol. But if it's the feds passing laws and setting up FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ENFORCE THEM,...well, check out recent history. If bobber the swift though affirmative action was bad, trust me, he ain't seen nothin' yet...when it will come down to defining and controlling families. Congress, caseworkers themselves, Social Work and Child Protection experts mostly all concur that reform from within has had it's chance for 20 years now and it has failed miserably. Some do, many don't. The ones that don't, are not asshole academics, but are in the trenches too damn busy trying to stop twits like you, and worse. Nobody but a complete stooge who somehow benefits financially, Dan...oh Dan......? Can I borrow a fiver for a latte? thinks CPS should be given more time to change from within. They have had 20 years, numerous court orders, Federal Consent Decrees, many many disasters that cost lives or destroyed families over false accusations. False accusations are rare. Look up the figures. Less than 10% of the unsubstantiated allegation calls are found to be deliberately false. The Child Protection INDUSTRY has evolved into a threat to families and Americans as monolithic as the Industrial Military Complex that Eisenhower warned us about as he left office. Wow! I'm impressed. You are upgrading your analogies. So would you say that the industry "jacklegs" are equivalent to Halliburton? The concept of guilt, innocence or truly protecting kids has taken a back seat to the need for AGENCY scores, in terms of numbers of kids in the system BECAUSE the Federal Grant Money that funds these agencies is based on the numbers of kids in the system. What would you base it on? There are severe problems with an agency culture that is so jaded and presumes guilt even in families where they know full well it's a lie. Your case does not equate. YOU were guilty as hell and have admitted it here. CPS asked Lisa to be rid of a known convicted Domestic Abuser, given that he had taken up extracurricular shower activities with a 7 year old. The Constitutional checks and balances do not apply in Juvenile (family) court. Yes they do. They just are different than in criminal court. They can remove your child forever over what they KNOW is flimsy or false, Nonsense. Dan's advice has even gotten people's children back that were guilty as hell and said so. and you have fewer rights than some person accused of stealing a candy bar. They lose their children for that? Rather than looking at child removal as a VERY SERIOUS THING, comparable to a murder charge, It's not. Constitutional Rights are avoided because nobody is CRIMINALLY CHARGED. Don't be silly. Plenty of child abuse and neglect cases end up in criminal court. They are cited in the ascps on practically a daily basis. The Liberty Interest of a family in being a family is not considered to be as compelling as a person losing the Liberty Interest of walking around outside of a prison. Too garbled to respond to. That's how families are cheated out of their Liberty Interests and their Constitutional Rights, every day in Juvenile Courts. Could be. Then again maybe not. Every day you say? That go for Saturday, Sunday and all legal holidays? Kane will SWEAR, Yep. insult, With gusto. use innuendo, Nope. I call you a child abuser, low rent gigolo, whore, low life scumsucker. Unless of course that constitutes "innuendo" in your book. lie, I never lie on matters of family and child safety. Never. Show citations. distort, In the eye of the beholder. You of course, with your shorteyes, would distort anything that suggested you had no business in that bathroom with that little girl. mislead I find myself overburdened with leading you and our cronies back to the subjects and issues of the debate thread. By the way:::: What DO you think about the recording Chris Dugan located and posted for a sample of CP? or anything else he can think of in the hope to smear me and kill my message. "kill" your "message?" R R R R R R .....and that being? As one person put it, they "blow the same bone" at me on every single topic, issue, subtopic, and they hope their childish antics will win out. We seem to be offended or otherwise disturbed by your lack of concern for a child and great deal of concern for your own selfish lazy interests. Tsk. What they really do is reveal what complete STOOGES they are with the same insults brought up in regard to EVERY topic. I can't speak for others who might be differently inspired than I, but I do what I do with you when YOU bring up things that are off topic..usually by you dragging the conversation to YOUR situation, when we are discussing some child's or parent's problems that have nothing to do with you. It's an attempt to shout me down, basically. No no...speak up, greegor. The last thing any of us, and I freely speak for others here....RR R R R R ....without a concern for them correcting me,. WE WANT YOU TO CONTINUE YOUR BABBLE. It makes clear what kind of nutso's are involved in the anti Government, anti CPS organizations. That's why Kane did it here, as everywhere else. You mistake my pointing for an attempt to supress you. No no no...I would be going against my ethics and my capacity for exposing creeps if I were to shut you down. PLEASE, don't leave us greegor. We would be lost without you. ..... but what was it you were saying again? Kane |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Hamilton1794 wrote: Kane (pohakuyakokane) on child-rearing: Why would anyone resort to CP if "verbal redirection" is 100% effective with his or her children? For some parents it's obviously not though. Interesting. I'd have thought you would have said, "for some *children* it's obviously not though." Either way would have the same meaning, but "For some parents dealing with some children it's obviously not enough" would be putting it completely, if that's important to you. It appears you are saying, and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, that some parents haven't the will or capacity to figure out how to not use CP. Is this a correct assumption of your meaning? I'm saying that some parents find the use of legitimate CP as one effective part of their child-rearing behavior modification methodology, and that it's their perogative to use it if they so desire. It's a parent's job to determine what child-rearing tactics work best for his or her particular child(ren). Breaking bones and/or leaving bruises would clearly show that its not legitimate CP but parental abuse. I presume stating the obvious is going to create a point from which to debate your next claim. I've been reading some of the posted debate here, and it seems that "stating the obvious" (like this) is often necessary to try to avoid being labeled as a "child abuser." Yes. Would it surprize you that the boundary I'm looking for is not really a factor -- after it's been passed; that I wish to know where it is from the side of innocence, and before abuse happens to indicate I've just broken the law, and in my own mind, assaulted my child? I'm not sure that there's a clearcut legal boundary, I've done a lot of research. There is none I can find. The law speaks to the issue of having passed the boundary, not where it was. Very foggy thinking. Very related to my point. This is a high risk behavior. and as a matter of pragmatic practice I'd venture that a loving, caring parent who elects to use CP for behavior modification purposes must be able to rely on using his or her own good judgement in relation to his or her child(ren). Sadly the line in The Question is passed far too often. The level of abuse in this country is extreme. There are many who think CP if fine, even to the point of switching children as young as 4 months old, and advocating others do it as a duty. I would opine that spanking should not be done while the parent is in a state of anger, and also that a parent who doesn't trust his or her own judgement on the matter shouldn't be engaging in CP of his or her child(ren). Well, that is my point. If you cannot know, as apparently one cannot given this question being unanswered so far, then can one trust one's judgement? What we see is far too many instances where one spanking has failed to produce the desired outcome, and the parent escalates. Remember, I'm asking The Question related to all forms of injury. Can you honestly say you could judge with any accuracy the psychological capacity of your child at any given moment to suffer a spanking without harm? Do you know, for instance, what thoughts and feelings they were having that lead to them doing what they did? Let me put it this way. If you use the more common non CP methods to work through a problem with a child you will have some better understanding, not exact, but better, of what they were thinking and feeling at the time of the misbehavior. Would that be a good time to make the judgement of whether or not the behavior warranted a spanking and if so deliver it then? As for that difficult to define boundary (I think it impossible -- as you might have guessed), if it's that hard to find, and if so many very likely loving and well meaning parents have crossed over it, I don't know how many actually have "crossed over it," it seems like it's the exceptions, the abusers, that get the public notice. Why yes, my point. And no, they aren't exceptions. Around three million abuse and neglect calls come into CPS abuse hotlines every year. About a million are substantiated. I daresay most cases would include the use of CP. That seems something more than just exceptional. some strange fools, such as the Pearls whip 4 month old babies, I agree that this is pathetic parenting practice, those people are bizarre (if not outrightly sadistic) in using CP on near-newborn infants. What is it about the older child that makes him or her more switchable? no non pc parenting method has broken bones or rended flesh directly, and that some seem to think no CP methods very powerful indeedy, wouldn't it make sense to examine the non CP parenting more closely and even give it a try? No legitimate CP parenting method has done those things either, they're obviously "over the line." I'm sorry to say you are wrong. Take school paddling. The right of the school in loco parentis to apply a board to a child's posterior. They have, well within the law, done serious long lasting harm to a children's bodies. I would say likely to their minds as well, given the propensity for violence and crime in those states that still or did paddle. And many parents consider severe injury as CP and their right to use. They celebrate now that a court has found in favor of parental us of CP that leaves marks on the child. That would be actual tissue damage. If you or I were hurt that much by another we would have grounds for making criminal and civil charges against the perp. Parents should use whatever nonabusive child-rearing methods they find appropriate and effective for their children, using their best judgement. Their best judgement often results in injury to the child. Deliberate injury. About a million a year. There's something very misunderstood about many child abusers. We seem to think they are all fanged monsters who from the get go decide to and act out to injure their children. That simply isn't so. Using their "best judgement" they escalate from nonabuse to abuse, most often. I'd certainly agree that "non-CP methods" should be used, with or without legitimate CP accompanying them, based on the parents' discretion. My position is that that is truly the only moral and ethical way to treat children, sans CP. My hope is that an appeal will wake people up so that lawmakers will not be inspired to make the issue a federal law. I'm not happy with federal laws governing parenting. A thing that seems as isolated as CP, about which a single subject law might be made, can go quickly to runious overkill, when enforced. Inrestingly I've found that not to be true. So many of the things I did when tried by others proved to be almost totally universal. No matter the disposition of the child, they all responded with compliance, from willing to eager. I've heard some people make that claim for spanking as well, and I'm not in a position to dispute your claims or theirs, but I do believe that there's considerable variance among different children and in different situations. Of course. But gentle parenting tends to bring out the best, while CP parenting does not gentle children. It brings out the worst...though sometimes it is well hidden and won't surface for many years. It's this spanking thing that gets people all uptight, now isn't it. Come on, confess, eheheheh...you know it's true. Something in us makes us cling to this practice as our last resort, and too often our first resort, like it was the holy grail. Most people I know who spank (or spanked) their children don't (or didn't) appear to be "uptight" about it, they just consider(ed) it part of being a loving, caring parent even though they generally don't (or didn't) find it enjoyable. Odd, there isn't a scintilla of difference between what I said, and you said. Not really. Imagine considering hitting another human being a loving caring thing to do. Have you any idea how incongruous that reads? I believe that it was once the fashion for women to brag that they knew their men loved them because they beat them regularly. How very sick that is. All it meant really was that they felt truly "owned." We've stopped beating our livestock, our women, and it's time to stop beating our children and calling it "spanking." They do (or did) find it effective as a behavior-modification tactic, however. In the vast majority of cases, it is (or was) considered only one method and they employ(ed) others as well, when they feel (or felt) that those methods would be more effective or appropriate. The only problem we have here is the numbers of folks that refused to us CP as a behavior modification tactic and decided that there were other methods that worked better. I find the claim, now and then in this very ng, that the lack of the use of CP is the cause of all the rising youth crime rate. Of course when one goes to the DOJ/FBI data on youth they find that quite the opposite is true. It's been dropping for years. In fact so many of the other indicators for youth "misbehavior" are dropping, as the practice of CP is being outlawed more and more, there is a suspicious correlation arrising. Then there are those that claim that surveys show 90% of us are spanked. Seems the two groups, those that claim we don't use it enough and those that proudly point to the 90% figure, are just a tad confused. And one has to remember, that out of the 100% of us, a certain percentage do turn out to be rotten adults. I've lived long and I've seen non-spanked children grow up and take their place in the adult world. It may be the single most pursuasive motivator I have for promoting a non CP parenting ethic. I've seen what non-punitive methods can do...yes, I said "non-punitive," not just non CP. Many parents that either start off without CP, or come to drop it, become exposed to and sensitized to leaving off punishment altogether. And they see the benefits rather quickly. I've seen it in weeks in some badly abused children that I worked with in a mental health treatment setting. And I never saw an unspanked child there. From first to last child I ever worked with there they had all been spanked in varying degrees. You do not recognize verbal power struggles? What is a political tract, if it is not an attempt to gain power? What is any debate or argument, whether written or spoken? They all have high potential to become a power struggle. I have no interest in "power struggles" on internet newsgroups, and I don't consider this kind of a discussion (or even a spirited debate) as a "power struggle," to me it's just an exchange of ideas and information. When someone comes at me with illogic and a bending of facts..such obvious ones, I presume some attempt to disempower my words with his attack. And I feel justified in using that term based on the unfairness of pretending reading is as traumatic as hearing. Maybe some people use the internet to help them resolve traumatic experiences from earlier in their lives, but I have no interest in doing that. Words can only have the power that one gives to them, so I really don't have to "disempower" anyone's cyber-words on the internet as I haven't empwered them in the first place. (Merely reading them with an open albeit skeptical mind isn't my concept of empowering them.) How very much my point exactly. If we know that driving is harmful and risky and we don't have to do it, we have a choice of walking, riding transit, biking, rollerskating, or mounting up on a Segway. Sometimes driving is the best, most effective way of reaching a destination, and under certain conditions it might be safer than some of the alternatives you've mentioned. Mmm...I doubt that is true. The accident rate is not as high for the alternatives. I happen to consider non-punitive parenting methods absolute racecars though. Or better, jet aircraft. Do you, by the way, see any possibility that your little sentence, "If you can't discuss the subject seriously..." could be taken as humor, OR, a bid to take control of the debate? A ...ahhhmmm power struggle? You should take it at face value, that I perceived that you had no real intention of spanking your adult daughter, which is the ONLY meaning that I intended. It strikes me that you are thinking yourself too too clever to have expanded the argument to all parenting issues, and child-rearing strategies, when I spoke to one, and one only. Barring your having telepathic abilities, what "strikes you" about my beliefs on things that I've made no comment on whatsoever is pure speculation on your part, isn't it? No. I was looking directly at your posted words. Then you'll have to "directly" quote my "posted words" wherein I claimed to be "clever." Then you didn't expand the issue to one not related to the one I was discussing? I see. To me, the expression "whalin' on a kid's body" is quite different from mere "spanking," Not to me. I didn't make that connection up. Those that spank use terms like that. And if you ask them if they are beating their child to injure them do the not say the same thing that someone "spanking" says? They might say "whalin' on a (kid's) butt," I suppose, but "body" creates an entirely different meaning for me. Obviously, the nomenclature isn't critically important, it's what is actually done that draws the distinction between child abuse and legitimate CP. Yes. And the lack of a definitative model that can be called CP and not abuse. That IS why I ask The Question. There is no agreement universally of what is and isn't safe in the way of CP. We find much more care taken in equally risky behaviors, such as driving, or target shooting, or plumbing. We know precisely how fast we can go at the maximum limit of speed. We know precisely why we cannot hook up water feedlines in a way that would allow a siphon to occur. We know precisely the set rountine for range safety in shooting. We do not know these more exact limits in spanking. We can't even agree on them. It's in the nature of hitting each other that the problem arises. If there are other tools that work with all children that can be reached, and spanking most definately will NOT work on children that are mentally disabled in some way, then why are we spanking at all? I'd suppose that it's a question of what "works best" or "works most effectively" in certain varying situations, that parents are responsible for deciding using their own best judgement. The best judgement argument is why I ask The Question. How good is our best judgement in a situation where we strike the flesh of a child. Just how much skill of what kind does it take to judge correctly and not do harm to mind and body? Or, is it okay to do harm? If so, how much? Of what kind? In some societies it is so unusual to see someone even admonish a child that doing so can send a crowd into stunned shamefilled silence. They are ashamed for the person that would hurt a little child. Well, I've admonished children for misbehaving on occasion and I never felt either guilty or abusive about doing so. I can't say that the children appeared to be emotionally traumatized or damaged either. It's all in the meaning of "admonish." If you screamed loudly for five minutes, and emballished with name calling, and threating body posture, that would be one thing. If you pointed out the risks or discomfort to self and others, that is something else. I gathered the girls up as I went to the rec room and they all stood around as I addressed the two that had been fighting. All I said was, honest, 'I'm so disappointed," and in about three seconds the place was flooding with tears, and girls were sobbing in each other's arms, and I was looking for kleenex. Sometimes it was like that, an expression of disappointment in their misbehavior (and an implication that it shouldn't be repeated), but I've never felt "ashamed" of doing it. The metaphore had nothing to do with you, but with a society that accepts the physical assualt of a child as being perfectly okay, if it doesn't break their body. (Hamilton) Kane |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, Non Punitive, whatsis, ... Zzzz...
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm
Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting. Chris |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm
Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting. Chris |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/ReportCard.htm
Those who have traumatic issues about corporal punishment in childhood should use discretion. This sound file can be extremely upsetting. Chris |
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 |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |