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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
jitney wrote:
The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** [mindless etc] --------------------- We have a brainwashed little rightist pin-head who is terrified of intelligence and intellectualism, ladies and gentlemen!! If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. ----------------------- Sure, *IF* that were the result, except IT ISN'T!! INSTEAD: Criminals come FROM being punished!! We discovered that you Rightist **** JUST WANT TO HURT CHILDREN AS A DEFECT OF YOUR CHARACTER, it doesn't actually HELP kids AT ALL, IN FACT IT DAMAGES THEM!! People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats ------------------------- Nope, NOT OURS! YOURS!! Your abuse of children *IS* what makes them rebellious and criminal, and drug-user, and every other thing you can think of! -Jitney ----------- Wake the **** up, Jitney, you were named after a ****ing TAXI! Steve |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
I wouldn't this far. The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind of information is useful. Like my father said, it's always better to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius. What get to me is the blind-faith into something just because it sound nice or because some so-called "expert" said so. See the current hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-) Doan Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman. Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974) On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote: The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan" Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing" I wouldn't this far. Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity. Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and learning. The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind of information is useful. "Open minded?" Come on, Droaner. You can't mean you. All you listen to is pro spanking propaganda. You've been posting it here for years. Like my father said, it's always better to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius. Ah, but learning something from a genius might be even better. I suspect he said this right after he whallopped your ass good. Not that his saying leave out the chance to learn anything from anyone not an idiot. So much for the logic he taught you...but then we've known this about you all along. What get to me is the blind-faith Gosh, I don't recall Jerry Alborn going on blind faith. And I certainly know I didn't. I began to study this issue earnestly in 1954. I've hardly let up since. In fact I came from the mindset that pain and force were acceptable ways of teaching people. However, I fell into a very severe case of questioning all things I "thought" were right. You might try it sometime. You are the ones that rely on what you think is "thought" when it's nothing but operant conditioning. Real thinking is hard work. And it doesn't mean, as you continually imply, just learing new information. into something just because it sound nice I'm sure to many CP sounds very "nice" as it fits their compulsive mental processing patterns. Common thinking errors. or because some so-called "expert" said so. Oh, I don't think some of those "so-called 'expert'" folks can hold a candle to your expert, the child development specialist that can whip a dachsund single handidly and pince small boys by the back of the neck until they squeal. So tell us, has CP proven to be better than non CP parenting? If not, then tell us, if you'll be so kind, what the relative risks of non-cp parenting are compared to cp parenting. See the current hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-) See the hoopla around operant conditioning back in the fifties. The education system thought they had classroom behavior whipped. Of course they forgot that 80% of all learning is by example. I did my part in hurrying that along. It's really funny to watch a roomfull of kids doing minimal appropriations reinforcement of teachers who think they are in charge. In fact, such conditioning behavior is natural for a child to use in early childhood, say from 4 or so to around six. If the child hasn't had his or her development crippled in that stage, you can see the 5 to 11 year old in action learning how to be a human......cooperation is the name of the game, and so different from the early years, (which most of you are stuck in because of the brutal childrearing you suffered that arrested your development) that they have to work pretty hard at it. Most of our games and sociable interactions are practices. Now girls have gotten into sports and are becoming socialized the same ways boys are. It's very interesting to watch happen. Doan You sure are. Ever now and then you post this about the progressive and vital searching that goes on for better ways for humans to raise their children. You forget of course that what has been going on for thousands of years, in some cultures, is cargo cult "science." They think doing the same thing over and over again will get the same results and the world and society better for it. Oddly, nothing has changed all that much...EXCEPT...societies that move away from punitive methods of control of citizens tend to move toward more civil societies. And those that revert to the childhood, "you touch my truck and I'll bite you hard" mentality reflected in the story below. Anyone that cares to look at reality sees in history where it's all going about child rearing. Frankly if kids were no better with non-cp, than cp, that, to an honorable person with ethics, would come out as "why spank then?" We know why you folks hit, Droaner, and why you lie to yourself with nonsense such as this below. Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. See, thinking error, big time. No they aren't. Folks with commonsense tend to be very open to new ideas and give them due consideration. They don't dismiss them out of hand as you folks wish to do with non-cp parenting. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. The careful choosing of analogy is both a science and an art. This guy missed by a mile. There is NO connection, even remotely, between the two issues. Unless the teacher was precluded, in teaching reading, from using a punishment model. Or a parent of bad boys, Ah, now we get down to it. Are bad boys bad by nature, or by training? Well, I've watch a few hundred raised not only without CP but very little punishment at all. Whatever exploratory urges they have that endanger themselves or others the parents had no trouble at all redirecting...why? Because the children trust the parents NOT to hurt or MISdirect. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to direct a child to learn what he wishes in a non dangerous fashion, faster and better? after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. Doesn't compute. Once again misleading. There are plenty of "experts" who have been quoted in this ng telling her to spank. Why should she feel guiltly? Because she knows in some part of her, hidden by her own painfilled childhood, that using pain on children is wrong morally, and dangerous for humanity. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I agree. We have been saying that for years about spanking proponents, especially the experts. You folks spend about all your debating time trying to refute studies that show spanking to be injurious, and can't field an real support for your position, outside of cargo cult support. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman. Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974) With 90% of the population being sujected to CP, and probably closer to 100 being subjected to pointless punishment, I'm sure he had no fear whatever his blather would be well received. On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote: The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. On the contrary. Some posters here have put this academician theorizing (that arrose out of laboratory experiments dating to the 20's) into practice. They have tested it. I certainly did. I know hundreds of others who have. It works. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, Two problems here. One is that much of what parents call "bad behavior" is either not within the child's control, (tired, sick, lack of information) or is nature compelled exploritory activity....and is easily redirected by the parent that thinks instead of hits. Pain stops learning, and narrows it down to just trust issues. Trust of the parent. The child learns something alright, but not what I want them to learn. How to be sneaky. How to be agressive. How to have relationships empty of trust and full of control struggles. you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. Well, let me put it this way. Go find me the criminals that were not subjected to CP, and we'll compare notes. I'll give you a hint. Children that aren't hit rarely end up in jail convicted of a crime. People that advocate mindless theories Sorry, it's your protest that is mindless. You obviously haven't been here long and read the archives. Considerable minding of this matter has been done. I've studied it since 1954 or thereabouts. In fact, for the past few decades, as more and more non-punitive child care takes over less and less juvinile crime is evident. State after state has done away with school paddling, for the good. Grades up, violence down. And please don't ring up Moore and Bowling for Columbine. That year was one of the lowest years for in school violent loss of life for many a year. like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney Interestingly, in my town there is a group of kids and their families who go out on a monthly project for a weekend, that is exactly that....removing graffiti. Merchants and business and clubs like Kiwanis and Elks provide money for supplies. I know about half the families. Guess what...they don't spank their kids. You may wipe the spittle off your chin now, and challenge me. Want to see the DOJ/FBI data on junenile crime? Want to bet the media is behind hyping every think a kid does that can possibly be construed as bad? Want to point to the world with it's high prevalence of violent child upbringing, as we do it here with lots of punishment and spanking and claim spanking is the reason for "improvement" in the social condition? I'm game. Kane |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan" Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing" I wouldn't this far. Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity. Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and learning. The idea is to be open-minded and see what kind of information is useful. "Open minded?" Come on, Droaner. You can't mean you. All you listen to is pro spanking propaganda. You've been posting it here for years. Like my father said, it's always better to have learned something from an idiot then nothing from a genius. Ah, but learning something from a genius might be even better. I suspect he said this right after he whallopped your ass good. Not that his saying leave out the chance to learn anything from anyone not an idiot. So much for the logic he taught you...but then we've known this about you all along. What get to me is the blind-faith Gosh, I don't recall Jerry Alborn going on blind faith. And I certainly know I didn't. I began to study this issue earnestly in 1954. I've hardly let up since. In fact I came from the mindset that pain and force were acceptable ways of teaching people. However, I fell into a very severe case of questioning all things I "thought" were right. You might try it sometime. You are the ones that rely on what you think is "thought" when it's nothing but operant conditioning. Real thinking is hard work. And it doesn't mean, as you continually imply, just learing new information. into something just because it sound nice I'm sure to many CP sounds very "nice" as it fits their compulsive mental processing patterns. Common thinking errors. or because some so-called "expert" said so. Oh, I don't think some of those "so-called 'expert'" folks can hold a candle to your expert, the child development specialist that can whip a dachsund single handidly and pince small boys by the back of the neck until they squeal. So tell us, has CP proven to be better than non CP parenting? If not, then tell us, if you'll be so kind, what the relative risks of non-cp parenting are compared to cp parenting. See the current hoopla surrounding the Atkins diet? :-) See the hoopla around operant conditioning back in the fifties. The education system thought they had classroom behavior whipped. Of course they forgot that 80% of all learning is by example. I did my part in hurrying that along. It's really funny to watch a roomfull of kids doing minimal appropriations reinforcement of teachers who think they are in charge. In fact, such conditioning behavior is natural for a child to use in early childhood, say from 4 or so to around six. If the child hasn't had his or her development crippled in that stage, you can see the 5 to 11 year old in action learning how to be a human......cooperation is the name of the game, and so different from the early years, (which most of you are stuck in because of the brutal childrearing you suffered that arrested your development) that they have to work pretty hard at it. Most of our games and sociable interactions are practices. Now girls have gotten into sports and are becoming socialized the same ways boys are. It's very interesting to watch happen. Doan You sure are. Ever now and then you post this about the progressive and vital searching that goes on for better ways for humans to raise their children. You forget of course that what has been going on for thousands of years, in some cultures, is cargo cult "science." They think doing the same thing over and over again will get the same results and the world and society better for it. Oddly, nothing has changed all that much...EXCEPT...societies that move away from punitive methods of control of citizens tend to move toward more civil societies. And those that revert to the childhood, "you touch my truck and I'll bite you hard" mentality reflected in the story below. Anyone that cares to look at reality sees in history where it's all going about child rearing. Frankly if kids were no better with non-cp, than cp, that, to an honorable person with ethics, would come out as "why spank then?" We know why you folks hit, Droaner, and why you lie to yourself with nonsense such as this below. Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. See, thinking error, big time. No they aren't. Folks with commonsense tend to be very open to new ideas and give them due consideration. They don't dismiss them out of hand as you folks wish to do with non-cp parenting. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. The careful choosing of analogy is both a science and an art. This guy missed by a mile. There is NO connection, even remotely, between the two issues. Unless the teacher was precluded, in teaching reading, from using a punishment model. Or a parent of bad boys, Ah, now we get down to it. Are bad boys bad by nature, or by training? Well, I've watch a few hundred raised not only without CP but very little punishment at all. Whatever exploratory urges they have that endanger themselves or others the parents had no trouble at all redirecting...why? Because the children trust the parents NOT to hurt or MISdirect. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to direct a child to learn what he wishes in a non dangerous fashion, faster and better? after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. Doesn't compute. Once again misleading. There are plenty of "experts" who have been quoted in this ng telling her to spank. Why should she feel guiltly? Because she knows in some part of her, hidden by her own painfilled childhood, that using pain on children is wrong morally, and dangerous for humanity. So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. I agree. We have been saying that for years about spanking proponents, especially the experts. You folks spend about all your debating time trying to refute studies that show spanking to be injurious, and can't field an real support for your position, outside of cargo cult support. I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman. Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974) With 90% of the population being sujected to CP, and probably closer to 100 being subjected to pointless punishment, I'm sure he had no fear whatever his blather would be well received. On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote: The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. On the contrary. Some posters here have put this academician theorizing (that arrose out of laboratory experiments dating to the 20's) into practice. They have tested it. I certainly did. I know hundreds of others who have. It works. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, Two problems here. One is that much of what parents call "bad behavior" is either not within the child's control, (tired, sick, lack of information) or is nature compelled exploritory activity....and is easily redirected by the parent that thinks instead of hits. Pain stops learning, and narrows it down to just trust issues. Trust of the parent. The child learns something alright, but not what I want them to learn. How to be sneaky. How to be agressive. How to have relationships empty of trust and full of control struggles. you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. Well, let me put it this way. Go find me the criminals that were not subjected to CP, and we'll compare notes. I'll give you a hint. Children that aren't hit rarely end up in jail convicted of a crime. People that advocate mindless theories Sorry, it's your protest that is mindless. You obviously haven't been here long and read the archives. Considerable minding of this matter has been done. I've studied it since 1954 or thereabouts. In fact, for the past few decades, as more and more non-punitive child care takes over less and less juvinile crime is evident. State after state has done away with school paddling, for the good. Grades up, violence down. And please don't ring up Moore and Bowling for Columbine. That year was one of the lowest years for in school violent loss of life for many a year. like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney Interestingly, in my town there is a group of kids and their families who go out on a monthly project for a weekend, that is exactly that....removing graffiti. Merchants and business and clubs like Kiwanis and Elks provide money for supplies. I know about half the families. Guess what...they don't spank their kids. You may wipe the spittle off your chin now, and challenge me. Want to see the DOJ/FBI data on junenile crime? Want to bet the media is behind hyping every thing a kid does that can possibly be construed as bad? Want to point to the world with it's high prevalence of violent child upbringing, as we do it here with lots of punishment and spanking and claim spanking is the reason for "improvement" in the social condition? I'm game. Kane |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"jitney" wrote in message om... The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney The most important things that parents do to teach their children the difference between right and wrong are to teach them and to set a good example. If children understand how bad behavior would harm others, and if they choose to empathize with others rather than focusing entirely on themselves, their own consciences will provide a certain amount of punishment for bad behavior independent of whether they are punished by adults. For children who love their parents and who want their parents to think well of them, parental disapproval can also serve as a certain amount of punishment. And if a child's needs are met, and if parents do a good job of teaching the child how to find happiness without feeling a need to take things that don't belong to him or do things that harm others, the child has lot less reason to want to do things that are wrong. Imagine two children. One has a strong understanding of how wrong behaviors will harm others, backed by a parental example of generosity and caring about others, and his parents actively help him get at least most of what he wants without having to harm others, but he has no fear of punishment beyond that of his own conscience and his parents' disapproval unless he commits a crime. The other child understands how wrong actions harm others far less well and has parents who set a clearly selfish (and perhaps sometimes hypocritical) example and care relatively little about the child's needs and desires, but the child is likely to get spanked hard if he misbehaves - *IF* he is caught. Which child is more likely to behave well? And, especially, which child is more likely to behave well in situations where the risk of being caught is minimal or essentially nonexistent? I have very little idea of how reliably purely non-punitive parenting techniques really work, and while people like Chris, Steve, and the article's author would LIKE to believe that such techniques would always work, they do not seem to be able to provide any solid evidence. But the idea that such techniques CAN work for at least SOME families, especially where the parents are exceptionally dedicated and where the children are inclined to be relatively reasonable, is not nearly as implausible as it might appear at first glance. After all, if we adults are capable of choosing to do what is right because we want to respect the rights and feelings of others rather than because of fear that someone will punish us, why would it be impossible for children to do so? My own view is that parents should try to make non-punitive techniques work as much as they reasonably can, because to whatever extent they do work, they help children think like adults who do what is right because it is right instead of like children who do what is right only because they are afraid of getting in trouble if they don't. At worst, the number of situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their children's behavior. And at best, they might always be able to get their children to behave well enough that the parents can live with their children's occasional imperfections without feeling a need to resort to punishment. After all, how many of us adults would want others to expect us always to behave perfectly and punish us any time we don't? Nathan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Doan wrote:
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. --------------------- Nonsense, if she's so ****ing smart she can teach her kids to read long before they even go to school, as WE did! If it doesn't work, or if her methods make her kids hate her guts, then obviously she's WRONG! Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts. ------------------------ If her results are dog****, then she's wrong. If her kids weren't REALLY "bad", if instead SHE was the only one who was misbehaving, then SHE should be punished! So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science. ------------------------------- That would be YOURS, the slack-jawed idjit contingent, which is an ignorant pressure block of low-grade morons who resent people with more brains than they have. These comprise the right-wingnut pseudo-intellectual nutfringers who resent anything that doesn't meet with their standards of ignorant viciousness and forcing things that don't fit and don't work instead of using the correct tool for the job as determined by REAL Science! I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. ----------------------- Since you're the only backward cult member here, you're the one building airplanes out of coconuts, jerkoff! Steve In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land. (from Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feyman. Adapted from the CalTech commencement address given in 1974) On 16 Jun 2004, jitney wrote: The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"jitney" wrote in message om... The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney The most important things that parents do to teach their children the difference between right and wrong are to teach them and to set a good example. If children understand how bad behavior would harm others, and if they choose to empathize with others rather than focusing entirely on themselves, their own consciences will provide a certain amount of punishment for bad behavior independent of whether they are punished by adults. For children who love their parents and who want their parents to think well of them, parental disapproval can also serve as a certain amount of punishment. And if a child's needs are met, and if parents do a good job of teaching the child how to find happiness without feeling a need to take things that don't belong to him or do things that harm others, the child has lot less reason to want to do things that are wrong. Imagine two children. One has a strong understanding of how wrong behaviors will harm others, backed by a parental example of generosity and caring about others, and his parents actively help him get at least most of what he wants without having to harm others, but he has no fear of punishment beyond that of his own conscience and his parents' disapproval unless he commits a crime. The other child understands how wrong actions harm others far less well and has parents who set a clearly selfish (and perhaps sometimes hypocritical) example and care relatively little about the child's needs and desires, but the child is likely to get spanked hard if he misbehaves - *IF* he is caught. Which child is more likely to behave well? And, especially, which child is more likely to behave well in situations where the risk of being caught is minimal or essentially nonexistent? I have very little idea of how reliably purely non-punitive parenting techniques really work, and while people like Chris, Steve, and the article's author would LIKE to believe that such techniques would always work, they do not seem to be able to provide any solid evidence. ------------------- Just because we're WHOLLY UN-interested in the idiotic "cite-wars" that happen, when neurotic religiously-tortured morally-offended Right-wingnuts try to deluge this thread with their phony X-spurt website cut-n-pasties in response to our voluminous peer-reviewed journals that anyone CAN read if they want to, does NOT support YOUR moronic accusation that "they do not seem to be able to provide any solid evidence." In fact the reverse is true, by factors of ten to one or MORE!! Go ask all the child development authorities you want, and write down their opinions, and then let those stand as a vote for which is the Truth, if you're stupid enough to need that! But the idea that such techniques CAN work for at least SOME families, especially where the parents are exceptionally dedicated and where the children are inclined to be relatively reasonable, is not nearly as implausible as it might appear at first glance. ------------- Sure it is. All you're doing is trying to find an exception for your vicious abusive little perversion, anything to excuse abuse when YOU want to abuse!! The evidence shows that it does harm, period, full stop, it does NOT rate a doubt that you're trying to insist upon! It is like lighting your children afire, it is VERY likely to burn them horribly, even if it magically misses every thousandth one when the lighter fails, and it is therefore ALWAYS STUPID AND ALWAYS TO BE FORBIDDEN!!!!!! After all, if we adults are capable of choosing to do what is right because we want to respect the rights and feelings of others rather than because of fear that someone will punish us, why would it be impossible for children to do so? --------------------------------------- Because beatings can beat your victims into lying for twisted neurotic psychological motives of terror and misplaced cognitive dissonance, THAT'S why YOU DON'T GET to beat on your victims BEFORE they testify against you!!! My own view is that parents should try to make non-punitive techniques work as much as they reasonably can, because to whatever extent they do work, they help children think like adults who do what is right because it is right instead of like children who do what is right only because they are afraid of getting in trouble if they don't. At worst, the number of situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their children's behavior. And at best, they might always be able to get their children to behave well enough that the parents can live with their children's occasional imperfections without feeling a need to resort to punishment. -------------- Smarmy mealy-mouthed excuses for abuses. I gotte hand it to you, you almost bent double talking your way all around THAT one, but anyone can see that you tried to excuse some amount of punishment: "At worst, the number of situations where the parents will feel a need to punish is likely to be a lot smaller than if they relied primarily on punishment to correct their children's behavior." Truly SMARMY! After all, how many of us adults would want others to expect us always to behave perfectly and punish us any time we don't? Nathan -------------------------- All of us when it comes to the laws against felonies!! Which is why child abusive terror must be BANNED LEGALLY! Steve |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
On 16 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doan" Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.parenting.solutions,mis c.kids,alt.activism.children Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:18 PM Subject: "Parenting Without Punishing" I wouldn't this far. Parent without using punishment? We know. You don't have the capacity. Many have it and use it. Some got it the hard way, but thinking and learning. So where are they? How have their children faired? Did they grow up to be a Mother Theresa? A Ted Turner? Or do they grow up to be like you and Steve ? ;-) Doan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"jitney" wrote in message om... The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"Lesa" wrote in message ... "jitney" wrote in message om... The very title of this thread indicates a the kind of egghead academianistic theorizing that is so full of **** that such people need colostomy bags hooked up to their ears. If you raise a child without punishing bad behavior, you are inflicting a criminal on society and should yourself be held accountable. People that advocate mindless theories like this would be far more useful to society if they removed the grafitti that their hellion brats put up on the walls in the first place.-Jitney If one praises "good" behavior and treats a chid with repsect, talking to said child when "bad" things occur, there is no need for punishment. With all children? With non-neurotypical children? With children adopted at the age of 3 from foreign countries? With children in foster care? You see, "teaching without punishing" has been pushed down the throats of the educational system for more than a decade (I've been teaching that long). ANd while it works with some children-the naturally compliant kids who will burst into tears at the thought that they've failed an adult, there are others who definitely take advantage of the situation. The result is what you see in many public schools today (probably private ones, too)-a bunch of kids who are very sure that nothing you can do will affect them. They don't care about the relationship, or about pleasing the teacher. They don't care about pleasing their parents. They don't care about long-term results. And the results is that no child in the same classroom gets a good education. And, it has been my impression that the "don't you DARE punish my child because I don't believe in punitive parenting" parents are the ones who generally have the WORST behaved children, and who stand up for their child, shielding them from even natural consequenses the most-rather than the other way around. Those parents who do use consequences at home generally don't have to use many. They're not shrieking lunatics beating their child with an extention cord (actually, those are more likely to be the parent who has never before punished their child and then snaps-the worst cases of abuse we've had in the school were exactly that). Rather, they've learned that saying "NO" and enforcing that "When I say NO, and you don't listen, there are consequenses" works. Punishment doesn't always mean spanking. It doesn't have to ever mean spanking. But there needs to be some way of showing that the child doesn't always have complete control of all situations. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
| | 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 |