Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

whisky_galore

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

One eyed Jack

whisky_galore wrote: »

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place, I don't put my child outside the door when they need to go for a piss, and I don't feed them from a bowl on the floor either.

Do you imagine you're able to reason with a dog or something if that's what you appear to be advocating parents should attempt with their children? There are grown adults can't be reasoned with and for those adults yes, we do use force when they appear to ignore reason, the same as we would use force on domesticated animals who are incapable of reason.

GreeBo

whisky_galore wrote: »

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

Umm, yes they do?
Again, hitting is not beating or abusing.

Ush1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place, I don't put my child outside the door when they need to go for a piss, and I don't feed them from a bowl on the floor either.

Do you imagine you're able to reason with a dog or something if that's what you appear to be advocating parents should attempt with their children? There are grown adults can't be reasoned with and for those adults yes, we do use force when they appear to ignore reason, the same as we would use force on domesticated animals who are incapable of reason.

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

whisky_galore

Ush1 wrote: »

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

He'd probably give his granny with dementia a smack.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apparently you are though - WHAT'S TRUE Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers to teach them "their response matters," noting that it is not actually possible for babies to consent to a diaper change. WHAT'S FALSE Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.

So you twisting what I said into what I did not say means I am making up my own facts? Your desperation is palpable at this point to dodge defending the "facts" You made up, ran away from by ignoring the rebuttals, and are still unable to defend.

Because NOTHING you wrote under "WHATS FALSE" is actually what I wrote. All I wrote was in fact related to the seeking of that consent. Which means that what you wrote under "WHATS TRUE" is in fact EXACTLY what I said.

Bully for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And then there's this: So you are actually aware that qualified child psychologists aren't just limited to working with children, and yet you still chose to try and tell me that my criteria for why I would choose not to avail of the services of that particular child psychologist were somehow limited

Exactly, they are limited for EXACTLY the reasons I described and you verify in the opening of this paragraph. I talked of information you do not have, and you are here listing information you do not have. Thanks for making my point for me. You do not know this individual or what their practice is, or is not, limited to.

What you ARE doing however is evaluating their ability to mediate a child-adult relationship based on your evaluation of their adult-adult relationship. Which is a nonsense criteria for evaluation from the outset.

What compounds your nonsense however is that you are also evaluating their ability by a nonsense criteria of outcomes too by pretending that the cessation of a relationship is somehow a failure or an indication they did not put theory into practice, or whatever other nonsense you are peddaling off the back of that evaluation today. The fact remains that this is NOT a criteria used in the industry where, in fact, the cessation or termination of a relationship can by a valid and successful outcome of the process. Because quite often that turns out to be the right thing to do.

You further compound all that nonsense again then by suggesting that someone bringing their own personal experience into such situations as a psychologist is automatically a bad thing. Never mind the point you have no idea that the individual in question IS actually, or has ever actually, done that in their professional practice.......... it simply is not a bad thing automatically, nor does it mean the psychologist is, or is at risk of, "making it all about themselves" as you claimed.

So you are basically making up and inventing a STRING of criteria for measurement and evaluation that are themselves patent nonsense. And when unable to defend any of these things you merely retreat back to your usual "It is just my opinion" narrative.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you were doing is trying to pass off your opinion as fact, You claim that I tried to deride someone's opinion through an ad hominem when I made it clear that I was saying that I would not avail of their services. There was no ad hominem there, I was stating a fact. I wouldn't avail of their services, and if you imagine that their relationship with their parents wouldn't be a consideration in their suitability as a child psychologist

The only imagination in play is yours that such a consideration is warranted. Without the application of a large dose of assumption, something you are quite prone to, their relationship with their parents in no way informs us about their ability or suitability as a child psychologist. It simply does not, so the only one actually "passing opinions off as fact" here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's implicit in one of the first questions any interviewer would ask when they ask the candidate to tell them a bit about themselves. It's expected that their relationship with their parents and their own family would be a relevant consideration in determining their suitability for employment.

More opinion and imagination being passed off as fact from you here too then. You are merely inventing/asserting any interviewer would ask this question at all. And you are merely inventing/asserting what their expectations in the answer would be and would be relevant to. So not only are you making up these criteria in the first place...... you are now making up people who use those criteria in your fantasy world.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place

Lucky no one here is actually doing that then isn't it? Saying I would not do X to Y and I would not do Y to Z is not to equate Y and Z. It is to equate ones own responses to both Y and Z, which is a very different thing. And is in fact a difference I recall having to explain to you in the past.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

We generally acknowledge that manipulating people, especially children, with psychological and social pressures is wrong.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge. Rather what I think is that many conversations and interactions we have with other people are a form of manipulation. The word "manipulation" just has negative connotations like the word "agenda". Whether manipulation is wrong or not comes not from it BEING manipulation, but from the form it takes and the goal it has.

GreeBo wrote: »

So you are a sexist now are you Father?

Nice non-response there. There is nothing sexist about a single thing I wrote. Keep churning the feux offense mill though if it helps you dodge points. The point you are dodging, again, however is that how we view violence committed by one person on another tends to become more visceral if there is a power advantage in play between the source and the target. I gave one example of this and it triggered you, but there are many more. And it is not just violence we have that reaction in. We also have it in, say, sex. Where if there is an uneven power dynamic between two people having sex people treat it with more suspicion and judgement.

GreeBo wrote: »

See my first post. Manipulating a child to do what you want by using psychological and social pressures is pretty abhorrent to me. You see ok with it.

Again what I am "ok with" is the idea that we manipulate each other all the time. And I am "ok with" exploring the fact that "manipulation" is not one catch all term that creates an equivalence between everything you decide to throw into that net. I do not think the correct approach to such social and human relationships is to screech "manipulation" at everything and run away. Rather to break it down into chunks we can explore and evaluate the efficacy and effects of and classify some as being the most conducive to the current and future well being of all concerned.

GreeBo wrote: »

You are still failing to convince me how denying a child Wifi or sweets is NOT enforcing conformity but a simple slap is.

Again the difference lies in taking away all choice, and escalating to the point where conformity is the only option open........... and giving people their own choices but ensuring they recognize that will all choices comes consequences and some people might accept you taking those consequences but have no moral compunction to assist you in compounding them. Compelling a choice through consequences and offering choices while making consequences clear.... are two different things entirely.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd argue that what you are trying to instill over time actually diminishes over that same time to the point where the child is flat out confused as to why they are being punished.

Which would simply be a communication failure on your part, and not the fault of the child OR the approach used. If you can not implement such a system while also communicating well and ensuring everyone involved understands what is going on.... then there is no one to blame in that dynamic but yourself.

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, I love the way you sneak in "perhaps even through escalation" into your post. Is there any chance you can accept that NO ONE on here is advocating abusing or beating a child (or anyone for that matter)

I can accept that no one here is advocating or intending that sure. But that does not mean it does not happen. ANY discipline approach involves some risk..... some more than others...... that it will stop working and so it must be escalated in order to have the same effect as before. Certainly violence used on a three year old might be enough to get their attention at the time, but will be something that would be laughed off by a 10 year old. So there is little reason not to expect the level and quantity of violence used needs to escalate over time.

The question then, for many parents given parents vary in size physique and power....... what happens when the child reaches a point that the parent is unable to apply enough violence any more......... or worse the child reaches a point they can defend themselves or in fact retaliate. How effective is the violence based approach going to be at that point? Or could it even back fire given said parent has been teaching the child that violence is a valid and viable approach to conflict resolution?

GreeBo wrote: »

Flinging labels huh? Such as "lazy parenting"?

It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect.

If you feel I have used a label incorrectly then by all means question it. But this is certainly not equivilant to you merely shouting "pathetic" in the hope that calling it that, will make it that. It does not. At all. Even a little.

The label "Lazy Parenting" I can defend in many contexts however. I think, for example, incident based parenting is lazy parenting. Such as the example I gave of "The talk" in sexual education. That is lazy parenting. Not going near a subject until you have to, and then trying to get it all done in one single "the Talk". Using violence to obtain conformity in a given moment, without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline and behavior would also be, where it occurs, lazy parenting.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything, the employee at work was my own example. The argument has been made that since you wouldnt control a co-worker through a slap, then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong.

The argument being made is subtly different to that one. So you are indeed twisting it. From what it is, to what you want it to be. The argument ACTUALLY being made is that if violence is generally frowned upon, and is generally not used in conflict resolution, and is often illegal, and is generally viewed even worse if there is an uneven power dynamic in play......... then considering all that we are not saying "then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong" but we are in fact saying "then slapping a child is something that requires coherent justification in that light".

then slapping a child is somehow logically wrongAh, so you admit that you bullied him into doing what you wanted him to do. Bullying takes many forms, violence being just one.[/QUOTE]

Given the length of my posts I clearly have enough words of my own in my mouth without you shoving your own in there too. This is entirely and completely not what I said at all. Not even remotely similar in fact. And posting petty little images to defend ad hominem does not actually defend ad hominem.

seamus

Creative83 wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

So when did you qualify as a doctor, doctor?

You are qualified to declare ADHD to be "bull****", right?

GreeBo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge. Rather what I think is that many conversations and interactions we have with other people are a form of manipulation. The word "manipulation" just has negative connotations like the word "agenda". Whether manipulation is wrong or not comes not from it BEING manipulation, but from the form it takes and the goal it has.

Just like the negative connotations you have for negative reinforcements such as a slap?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice non-response there. There is nothing sexist about a single thing I wrote. Keep churning the feux offense mill though if it helps you dodge points. The point you are dodging, again, however is that how we view violence committed by one person on another tends to become more visceral if there is a power advantage in play between the source and the target. I gave one example of this and it triggered you, but there are many more. And it is not just violence we have that reaction in.

Well you think differently about the same event based on whether the people involved are male or female. I'd call that sexist, since yunno, you are discriminating based on sex.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We also have it in, say, sex. Where if there is an uneven power dynamic between two people having sex people treat it with more suspicion and judgement.

Sorry, who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge.
I dont judge sex as suspicious just based on the people involved.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again what I am "ok with" is the idea that we manipulate each other all the time. And I am "ok with" exploring the fact that "manipulation" is not one catch all term that creates an equivalence between everything you decide to throw into that net. I do not think the correct approach to such social and human relationships is to screech "manipulation" at everything and run away. Rather to break it down into chunks we can explore and evaluate the efficacy and effects of and classify some as being the most conducive to the current and future well being of all concerned.

We also slapped children "all the time", in fact for thousands of years, but you suddenly think we have been wrong all along. Are you so conceited that you 100% believe there is no chance that "we" will look back on your manipulation of children in a negative manner?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the difference lies in taking away all choice, and escalating to the point where conformity is the only option open........... and giving people their own choices but ensuring they recognize that will all choices comes consequences and some people might accept you taking those consequences but have no moral compunction to assist you in compounding them. Compelling a choice through consequences and offering choices while making consequences clear.... are two different things entirely.

Again, thats neither a difference nor a distinction.
How is conformity the only option? A child can choose to accept the slap just as they can choose to live without whatever it is you are withholding to manipulate them.
Unless of course you are again implying that people are escalating their physical punishment to the point of abuse because its the only thing that suits your point?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which would simply be a communication failure on your part, and not the fault of the child OR the approach used. If you can not implement such a system while also communicating well and ensuring everyone involved understands what is going on.... then there is no one to blame in that dynamic but yourself.

Thats assuming a child has the same comprehension levels as the adult who is attempting to communicate with them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can accept that no one here is advocating or intending that sure. But that does not mean it does not happen. ANY discipline approach involves some risk..... some more than others...... that it will stop working and so it must be escalated in order to have the same effect as before.

If you can accept it then please stop hiding behind it and bringing it up.
There are parents who bully their children in emotional ways, does that invalidate your approach?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Certainly violence used on a three year old might be enough to get their attention at the time, but will be something that would be laughed off by a 10 year old. So there is little reason not to expect the level and quantity of violence used needs to escalate over time.

Thats not a valid argument. The social manipulation you use with a 3 year old would also be laughed off by a 10 year old.
Age appropriateness is required, whatever the approach so you cant use that in any logical way to play one system off against another.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question then, for many parents given parents vary in size physique and power....... what happens when the child reaches a point that the parent is unable to apply enough violence any more......... or worse the child reaches a point they can defend themselves or in fact retaliate. How effective is the violence based approach going to be at that point? Or could it even back fire given said parent has been teaching the child that violence is a valid and viable approach to conflict resolution?

Why do you assume that controlling the behaviour will be an ongoing thing as the child reaches adolescence only if you use slapping when the child is young?
What happens in your approach when the child reaches a point (lets say 16) and you are unable to manipulate them by taking away their WiFi or their sweeties? Could it then be that the child, for example, locks you out of the WiFi?

Your arguments are SO rose-tinted its laughable. Many similar problems exist whatever the approach, yet you steadfastly ignore *the exact same problem* when it comes to your approach.

Parenting isnt a simple case of "follow these rules and all will be well".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect.

If you feel I have used a label incorrectly then by all means question it. But this is certainly not equivilant to you merely shouting "pathetic" in the hope that calling it that, will make it that. It does not. At all. Even a little.

The label "Lazy Parenting" I can defend in many contexts however. I think, for example, incident based parenting is lazy parenting. Such as the example I gave of "The talk" in sexual education. That is lazy parenting. Not going near a subject until you have to, and then trying to get it all done in one single "the Talk". Using violence to obtain conformity in a given moment, without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline and behavior would also be, where it occurs, lazy parenting.

Labels such as "slapping is lazy parenting"?
Your "arguments" to support this all assume a parent giving a child a random wallop without any explanation, yet that is not what anyone on the other side is advocating at all.

As with all things, various approaches are required, there is nothing wrong with parenting a specific incident, unless you are advocating that a parent thinks up every possible scenario and explains the consequences to the child up front; a-la Sheldons Roommate agreement?

You *Still* trot out ideas implying that a parent gives a slap and nothing else, despite being corrected multiple times. A slap can form *part of* the way a parent controls their childs behaviour. Where does anyone mention "without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline" other than yourself? This is the very definition of Strawman Arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The argument being made is subtly different to that one. So you are indeed twisting it. From what it is, to what you want it to be. The argument ACTUALLY being made is that if violence is generally frowned upon, and is generally not used in conflict resolution, and is often illegal, and is generally viewed even worse if there is an uneven power dynamic in play......... then considering all that we are not saying "then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong" but we are in fact saying "then slapping a child is something that requires coherent justification in that light".

But your psychological control (a.k.a. bullying) is not generally frowned about when their is an uneven power dynamic?

If you honestly think that you can equate interactions between adults with interactions between a child and a parent then I think we are done with this conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And posting petty little images to defend ad hominem does not actually defend ad hominem.

Moral high ground...lost.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Bully for you.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you twisting what I said into what I did not say means I am making up my own facts? Your desperation is palpable at this point to dodge defending the "facts" You made up, ran away from by ignoring the rebuttals, and are still unable to defend.

Because NOTHING you wrote under "WHATS FALSE" is actually what I wrote. All I wrote was in fact related to the seeking of that consent. Which means that what you wrote under "WHATS TRUE" is in fact EXACTLY what I said.

Bully for you.



Exactly, they are limited for EXACTLY the reasons I described and you verify in the opening of this paragraph. I talked of information you do not have, and you are here listing information you do not have. Thanks for making my point for me. You do not know this individual or what their practice is, or is not, limited to.

What you ARE doing however is evaluating their ability to mediate a child-adult relationship based on your evaluation of their adult-adult relationship. Which is a nonsense criteria for evaluation from the outset.

What compounds your nonsense however is that you are also evaluating their ability by a nonsense criteria of outcomes too by pretending that the cessation of a relationship is somehow a failure or an indication they did not put theory into practice, or whatever other nonsense you are peddaling off the back of that evaluation today. The fact remains that this is NOT a criteria used in the industry where, in fact, the cessation or termination of a relationship can by a valid and successful outcome of the process. Because quite often that turns out to be the right thing to do.

You further compound all that nonsense again then by suggesting that someone bringing their own personal experience into such situations as a psychologist is automatically a bad thing. Never mind the point you have no idea that the individual in question IS actually, or has ever actually, done that in their professional practice.......... it simply is not a bad thing automatically, nor does it mean the psychologist is, or is at risk of, "making it all about themselves" as you claimed.

So you are basically making up and inventing a STRING of criteria for measurement and evaluation that are themselves patent nonsense. And when unable to defend any of these things you merely retreat back to your usual "It is just my opinion" narrative.



The only imagination in play is yours that such a consideration is warranted. Without the application of a large dose of assumption, something you are quite prone to, their relationship with their parents in no way informs us about their ability or suitability as a child psychologist. It simply does not, so the only one actually "passing opinions off as fact" here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And you.



More opinion and imagination being passed off as fact from you here too then. You are merely inventing/asserting any interviewer would ask this question at all. And you are merely inventing/asserting what their expectations in the answer would be and would be relevant to. So not only are you making up these criteria in the first place...... you are now making up people who use those criteria in your fantasy world.



Lucky no one here is actually doing that then isn't it? Saying I would not do X to Y and I would not do Y to Z is not to equate Y and Z. It is to equate ones own responses to both Y and Z, which is a very different thing. And is in fact a difference I recall having to explain to you in the past.

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

Y'know for someone who claims to be a scientist of some sort, I can also question your credibility as a scientist on the basis that you appear to form your conclusions about other people on the basis of no research whatsoever. You also know that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't know why you keep pointing out that you have some scientific qualification as though that should actually matter to anyone, let alone lend your arguments any credibility. In fact it detracts from your credibility because you're consistently demonstrating that you're not a very capable scientist.

That's not an ad hominem either btw, nor is it meant to be insulting, it's an evaluation of your capacity as a scientist based on my criteria when you opened the door in the first place by claiming to be a scientist, in much the same way as that poster claimed to be qualified as a child psychologist giving their opinion on parenting based upon their experiences.

You're really not any more qualified to evaluate anyone's parenting than the sexual educator you dismissed as a nut job because you ran with a particular narrative which had no basis in reality. If you had done your research, you would have found that what she actually said was more nuanced than what you had claimed she said (no surprises there really), and why she actually taught the idea to parents, and the expected outcomes of the training. She's actually quite the opposite of your initial dismissal of her as a nut job, but I can understand why the fact that she has more knowledge and experience on the subject than you do would grate on you to some degree. As I have observed before, you tend to go straight for the jugular when you disagree with someone, as you have done throughout this thread, when everyone else has been civil.

One eyed Jack

Ush1 wrote: »

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

I've consistently said it would depend upon the circumstances. I wouldn't smack an adult with special needs any more than I would smack a child, or a child with special needs, regardless of their intellectual capacity.

Special needs btw isn't limited to intellectual capacity, but I understood what you meant for the sake of argument. A person with mobility issues also has special needs, their intellectual capacity wouldn't necessarily be an immediate consideration in determining the assistance they require.

I dunno how it works for you, but I tend to treat people differently from each other, because I don't view us as all being carbon copies of each other, but rather we are individuals.

Tekano tim

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

I feel like this career was not mentioned when I was in school?

dublinbuster

seamus wrote: »

So when did you qualify as a doctor, doctor?

You are qualified to declare ADHD to be "bull****", right?

it is bull****!
we live i PC times, doctors cant tell a parent they are not doing the job of raising a child properly, so they diagnose ADHD.
ADHD did not exist until a few years ago, either we as a species are evolving at a increased rate or its PC bull****, you decide.

seamus

dublinbuster wrote: »

it is bull****!
we live i PC times, doctors cant tell a parent they are not doing the job of raising a child properly, so they diagnose ADHD.
ADHD did not exist until a few years ago, either we as a species are evolving at a increased rate or its PC bull****, you decide.

Here's a list of some other things that "didn't exist" until a few years ago:

Dyslexia - 1881
Autism - 1938
Dyspraxia - 1937
Dyscalculia - 1974

I suppose this is all "PC bull****" too, just some doctors too afraid to tell parents that they're making a balls of it?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

Well yes, because it is not the dismissal of the opinion that I would be evaluating when making such a move. But the basis for that opinion. And while you keep retreating, on this thread and so many others, behind the "It is my opinion" narrative....... it is almost entirely NEVER your opinion that I am questioning in the first place. But the claims and statements you make WHILE expressing it.

For example if you merely say "My opinion is that slapping a child is fine, and can be effective and there is nothing wrong with it" Then fine, that is an opinion and you are welcome to it. However when WHILE expressing that opinion you make a statement like "Clearly it doesn't, or we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak." or "The majority of studies are from this source" or "The majority of studies do this....." you are making a direct claim about reality that is patently false. And THAT can be evaluated for the nonsense that it is without anyone whining about opinions and their right to them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know for someone who claims to be a scientist of some sort, I can also question your credibility as a scientist on the basis that you appear to form your conclusions about other people on the basis of no research whatsoever.

And that would be a valid claim to make, if in fact you ever stopped to ask for my citations or research. You tend to choose to get personal before (or rather entirely in place of) doing that however. So you have no position at all to evaluate the basis of my views until you actually ask for them. So try it sometime.

What I suspect is in play however is that you WANT to imagine that I form conclusions based on no research and in order to maintain that narrative you can not permit yourself to actually ask for any. Because if I provide it, your narrative crumbles.

But if you want to address a claim I have made, and ask me for the arguments, evidence, data and/or reasons I think I have for making it..... then simply do. And if you feel you asked and I did not answer..... ask again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You also know that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't know why you keep pointing out that you have some scientific qualification as though that should actually matter to anyone

Qualifications do matter. They just do not matter in many of the ways people pretend they do. For example a claim I make does not become more true just because I am qualified to make it. The truth value of the claim is ENTIRELY independent of who or what I am. Which is why I have never, at any point, ever informed you what my qualfiications actually even are. You neither know this, nor would you benefit from knowing.

But knowing that I am capable to speak, especially in areas of epidemiology, statistics, human psychology, the analysis and interpretation of scientific papers and methodology, and so forth should still be informative to you. It should be informative of the level you can speak to me at, which is always important in communication. And it should be informative that you will likely not get away with bluffing, lying, or making things up out of the ether. Which is, alas, what I have had to pull you up on on more than one occasion on this thread alone.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fact it detracts from your credibility because you're consistently demonstrating that you're not a very capable scientist.

Except I have done no such thing and this is just another example of what I have pulled you up on many times before.... which is your practice of saying X has attribute Y without offering a single piece of adhesive to make that label stick. You like to CALL things X Y or Z, but you never follow up in the next sentence / paragraph with an explanation of why it is X Y or Z. You throw the labels, and simply wish hard they will stick.

If you want to actually provide explanation evaluating my capabilities and showing what the evaluation is valid.... by all means try.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you had done your research, you would have found that what she actually said was more nuanced than what you had claimed she said (no surprises there really)

No surprises at all given what I claimed was said, and what you followed up claiming was said, were the same thing. So what your issue is is still entirely unclear to me and, I suspect, to you too.

For example when I said "we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies." and you followed up with "parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers" then there is no real difference there. Yet you have exploded this into some narrative that I have been misrepresentative. Out of completely nothing at all. (no surprises there really).

But unless you want to pedantically equivicate over the difference between "should" and "could" your attempt to suggest I was misrepresenting what was said is as desperate as it is frankly erroneous.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I have observed before, you tend to go straight for the jugular when you disagree with someone, as you ave done throughout this thread, when everyone else has been civil.

Except I do no such thing. Rather what happens is you tend to get personal when you realize you can not actually rebut the points I have made. That or you ignore entire posts and/or the majority of their content in order to "reset" the discussion on points you now want to avoid. As you have done in this thread.

As for "everyone else has been civil" then if you think a line like "you are probably well versed in dealing with HR for your unacceptable work place behavior." is civil then you either operate under a MASSIVELY different definition of the word to me..... or you basically just see what you want to see, when you want to see it.

nozzferrahhtoo

GreeBo wrote: »

Just like the negative connotations you have for negative reinforcements such as a slap?

Well no, not like that at all. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a word implying negative connotations that are not actually there, and an event or action actually having negative connotations in reality. The point I am making is that words like "manipulation" and "agenda" are often used as if they automatically mean something negative. And it is simply not so that they do. There is nothing wrong with manipulating others, it depends how and why you go about doing it.... and what the ultimate effects of doing it are....... that defines whether it is negative or not.

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you think differently about the same event based on whether the people involved are male or female. I'd call that sexist, since yunno, you are discriminating based on sex.

Nope. I think differently about the same event based on whether there is a difference in power between the people involved. And the fact the average male is more physically powerful than the average female is a reason why that is very often an example of this. You seem to be operating under a much different definition of "sexist" than I am. But in your rush to use that term you are bypassing the actual point. Which is that whatever our view of violence is, we tend to view it even dimmer when the perpetrator has power advantages over the recipient.

And my point from that is that one of the greatest disparities in such a power dynamic would be between grown adults, and children. So if we are going to implement violence based approaches to interacting with children, we would want to have some level of justification for doing so. Justification I have yet to see any of so far on this thread.

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge.
I dont judge sex as suspicious just based on the people involved.

We as in society. For example there is a common level of social stigma involved in sexual relationships between siblings, teachers and their students, doctors and their patients, army officers and their underlings and so forth. Where one person is seen to have power or authority over the others, there is concern as to the morality and ethics involved in having a sexual relationship between them because of this. Even when they are consenting adults.

GreeBo wrote: »

We also slapped children "all the time", in fact for thousands of years, but you suddenly think we have been wrong all along. Are you so conceited that you 100% believe there is no chance that "we" will look back on your manipulation of children in a negative manner?

You are talking in absolutes that are not present in the material you are replying to. I do not care about what people look back on in the future. Nor so I care all that much about what we did in the past either to be honest. My focus is only on what arguments, evidence, data and reasoning do we have NOW to ask the question about what actions we can best justify using going forward.

If people in the future look back on us with derision for our choices, I can only assume they will be doing so because they have access to data and reasoning we did not have access to when we made them. As such they are welcome to their derision, but it will be unjustified so long as we can claim to be making the best decisions NOW based on the data we have NOW.

I certainly would not look at "Well we did it for thousands of years" as useful arguments for.... well.... anything really. The question still remains, should we be doing it NOW.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again, thats neither a difference nor a distinction.

It really is. The distinction being that enforcing conformity in the moment removes all choice, while the other dynamic does not. It is a massive change in the dynamic of the actual event in the moment, and how that event can play out and resolve itself. And it is a massive change in what is being taught in that moment too in terms of teaching choices have consequences compared with not doing what I want them to do has consequences.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats assuming a child has the same comprehension levels as the adult who is attempting to communicate with them.

Nope. That assumption is not at all present in, or required for, what I just wrote. You can assume that all you like of course, but I certainly did not and am not required to. The ability to communicate does not require "the same comprehension level" at all. It requires that the person at the higher comprehension level be capable of, and willing to, parse their communication down to the other.

GreeBo wrote: »

If you can accept it then please stop hiding behind it and bringing it up.

I did not hide behind anything of the sort though. You are inventing things I did not say, and then accusing me of hiding behind them. You might as well be accusing fish of hiding behind the water they swim in for all the sense you are making.

GreeBo wrote: »

There are parents who bully their children in emotional ways, does that invalidate your approach?

If escalation is required in a given approach, and that escalation reaches a level where it crosses a line into abuse, then that is a problem yes. So as I keep saying each approach has to be evaluated for that potential, and compared on that basis. Even if 100% of all approaches requires escalation at some point, that does not make them all the same. They will differ in the levels it is required.

The violence based approach almost by definition requires escalation because as children grow and strengthen the level of violence required in the past will no longer be enough in the present. There is much less in many other suggested approaches that suggests such escalation is so close to being default, if even required at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats not a valid argument. The social manipulation you use with a 3 year old would also be laughed off by a 10 year old.

I do not think that is true at all. You are asserting it without any reason you think it is true. When I spoke of the same thing with violence, I at least explained WHY I think it was so. Which is that a growing child is going to be stronger and have a higher pain tolerance. That at least explains why escalation of the violence may be required. You are not offering a similar explanation for your assertion. For example the removal of a privilege like television access, or access to pleasurable snack foods, can be implemented in an identical fashion on both.

But again like a few other attempts before, including calling it all "manipulation" I do not think finding a common trait between these things automatically makes them equivalent. Even if every approach (which I doubt, but imagine it for the purposes of argument) requires escalation...... there can be massive differences in such requirements between them. If one approach needs a lot of it, and another needs very little of it, then merely classing them both as requiring it will not be informative or useful at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you assume that controlling the behaviour will be an ongoing thing as the child reaches adolescence only if you use slapping when the child is young?

Again no such assumption is required for what I am saying. For any given child we do not know when discipline will be required. You might NEVER need it. You might need it daily for every day of the childs life. Or anything in between on that continuum anywhere at all. The question remains whether on any point of that continuum whether a given approach required escalation, if so by how much, and if so can it reach a point where the power dynamic can switch. Certainly a lot of parents will find a point where their child can not only defend themselves but often fight back. And win. What then?

GreeBo wrote: »

Your arguments are SO rose-tinted its laughable. Many similar problems exist whatever the approach, yet you steadfastly ignore *the exact same problem* when it comes to your approach.

Except I have ignored no such thing. What I have been discussing, when you have not both been putting words in and taking words out of my mouth, is that it does not matter if the "exact same problems" exist from approach to approach. Because no one is claiming any approach makes every problem go away. What IS being claimed is that we can, and should, evaluate each problem type and work out which are the best approaches on each merit.

You keep talking in absolutes that are not present in anything I have said, and then acting like those absolutes are a problem in things I have espoused. Which is a truly odd approach to conversation.

GreeBo wrote: »

Parenting isnt a simple case of "follow these rules and all will be well".

Great. Now if you could just find someone who has been claiming or pretending it is..... I am sure they would benefit from hearing this information. Why you bring it up with me however is anyones guess including, I suspect, your own.

GreeBo wrote: »

Labels such as "slapping is lazy parenting"?

You do not appear to have read what you replied to so I will merely copy and paste it for you again:

"It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect."

And again, I did not just call anything lazy parenting, I explained exactly WHY I think it is so when I have in fact called it that.

GreeBo wrote: »

Your "arguments" to support this all assume a parent giving a child a random wallop without any explanation, yet that is not what anyone on the other side is advocating at all.

The list of assumptions you have invented and merely pretended are inherent in anything I have said is getting rather long at this point. I am wondering if at this point it might be a more honest and mature approach to actually ask me what my assumptions behind any given claim are, rather than telling me what you think they are?

GreeBo wrote: »

But your psychological control (a.k.a. bullying) is not generally frowned about when their is an uneven power dynamic?

It would, as I keep telling you, entirely depend on how it is implemented, why, and to what effect. Inflicting violence on someone who can not defend themselves in any way is not really comparable with giving a person a choice, accepting when that choice is made, and then making choices of your own. And I do not really buy the "Well the child has the choice not to get slapped" narrative really.......... it strikes me as nonsensical in the same way as a mugger saying "Well I am giving you the choice not to get stabbed with this knife".

GreeBo wrote: »

If you honestly think that you can equate interactions between adults with interactions between a child and a parent then I think we are done with this conversation.

Well of course you can. Unless the issue is purely linguistic. The word "equate" can mean entirely equal. But a lot of people use it to mean "compare" or "comparable" too. It is rather a flexible word. So rather than risk a mere miscommunication I think I will avoid that word. What I do believe is that ALL human interactions share many commonalities, trends, factors and attributes. And depending on the contexts and goals, varying degrees of comparisons can be drawn between them and operated upon.

And the comparison I was drawing upon between discussing child discipline and the interaction example from the work place is that very often we afford people their rights AND their privileges. And we go out of our way sometimes in ways we do not have to do to afford them the latter. And so it is a perfectly valid approach, with both children and with adults, to remove one of those things if a situation suggests it is warranted. And if a person, child or coworker adult, is acting in an unethical or immoral fashion..... it is perfectly warranted to say "Fine, that is your choice, but I feel not at all compelled to invest my time and resources in affording you privileges that were never your right to begin with.... especially if you are insist on using what I give you to harm yourself or others".

Despite pouring mere derision on this, you have not actually stopped to explain what any actual issue with it may be.

GreeBo wrote: »

Moral high ground...lost.

Not at all, though you will forgive me if I do not take your evaluation seriously when you are pretending I have lost something you were pretending I never had in the first place. Hardly a transition really. But if you can not tell the difference between a statement like that, and outright insults like suggesting I have issues with unacceptable work place behavior then your linguistic issues are deeper than I have been accounting for. You have to HAVE a moral ground to presume to judge that of others. So perhaps clean up your own house before you run a dust checking finger of the side boards in anyone elses.

dublinbuster

seamus wrote: »

Here's a list of some other things that "didn't exist" until a few years ago:

Dyslexia - 1881
Autism - 1938
Dyspraxia - 1937
Dyscalculia - 1974

I suppose this is all "PC bull****" too, just some doctors too afraid to tell parents that they're making a balls of it?

PC bull**** is very much real.
a 10 year old child is not responsible enough to decide which time they can go to bed at.
A 10 year old child can decide its trapped in the wrong body and consent to be pumped with drugs/hormones to change gender
PC bull**** in full effect.

ADHD is another example of PC bull****
The Doctor thinks internally
"your child is a brat, sort it out and stop wasting my time"
But cant say if due to PC, so its ADHD, Doctor smiles and think "get the fcuk out of my office"

seamus

dublinbuster wrote: »

PC bull**** is very much real.
a 10 year old child is not responsible enough to decide which time they can go to bed at.
A 10 year old child can decide its trapped in the wrong body and consent to be pumped with drugs/hormones to change gender
PC bull**** in full effect.

ADHD is another example of PC bull****
The Doctor thinks internally
"your child is a brat, sort it out and stop wasting my time"
But cant say if due to PC, so its ADHD, Doctor smiles and think "get the fcuk out of my office"

That didn't answer my question.

So when did you get your qualification, and what particular branch of medicine are you in?

GreeBo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well no, not like that at all. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a word implying negative connotations that are not actually there, and an event or action actually having negative connotations in reality. The point I am making is that words like "manipulation" and "agenda" are often used as if they automatically mean something negative. And it is simply not so that they do. There is nothing wrong with manipulating others, it depends how and why you go about doing it.... and what the ultimate effects of doing it are....... that defines whether it is negative or not.



Nope. I think differently about the same event based on whether there is a difference in power between the people involved. And the fact the average male is more physically powerful than the average female is a reason why that is very often an example of this. You seem to be operating under a much different definition of "sexist" than I am. But in your rush to use that term you are bypassing the actual point. Which is that whatever our view of violence is, we tend to view it even dimmer when the perpetrator has power advantages over the recipient.

And my point from that is that one of the greatest disparities in such a power dynamic would be between grown adults, and children. So if we are going to implement violence based approaches to interacting with children, we would want to have some level of justification for doing so. Justification I have yet to see any of so far on this thread.



We as in society. For example there is a common level of social stigma involved in sexual relationships between siblings, teachers and their students, doctors and their patients, army officers and their underlings and so forth. Where one person is seen to have power or authority over the others, there is concern as to the morality and ethics involved in having a sexual relationship between them because of this. Even when they are consenting adults.



You are talking in absolutes that are not present in the material you are replying to. I do not care about what people look back on in the future. Nor so I care all that much about what we did in the past either to be honest. My focus is only on what arguments, evidence, data and reasoning do we have NOW to ask the question about what actions we can best justify using going forward.

If people in the future look back on us with derision for our choices, I can only assume they will be doing so because they have access to data and reasoning we did not have access to when we made them. As such they are welcome to their derision, but it will be unjustified so long as we can claim to be making the best decisions NOW based on the data we have NOW.

I certainly would not look at "Well we did it for thousands of years" as useful arguments for.... well.... anything really. The question still remains, should we be doing it NOW.



It really is. The distinction being that enforcing conformity in the moment removes all choice, while the other dynamic does not. It is a massive change in the dynamic of the actual event in the moment, and how that event can play out and resolve itself. And it is a massive change in what is being taught in that moment too in terms of teaching choices have consequences compared with not doing what I want them to do has consequences.



Nope. That assumption is not at all present in, or required for, what I just wrote. You can assume that all you like of course, but I certainly did not and am not required to. The ability to communicate does not require "the same comprehension level" at all. It requires that the person at the higher comprehension level be capable of, and willing to, parse their communication down to the other.



I did not hide behind anything of the sort though. You are inventing things I did not say, and then accusing me of hiding behind them. You might as well be accusing fish of hiding behind the water they swim in for all the sense you are making.



If escalation is required in a given approach, and that escalation reaches a level where it crosses a line into abuse, then that is a problem yes. So as I keep saying each approach has to be evaluated for that potential, and compared on that basis. Even if 100% of all approaches requires escalation at some point, that does not make them all the same. They will differ in the levels it is required.

The violence based approach almost by definition requires escalation because as children grow and strengthen the level of violence required in the past will no longer be enough in the present. There is much less in many other suggested approaches that suggests such escalation is so close to being default, if even required at all.



I do not think that is true at all. You are asserting it without any reason you think it is true. When I spoke of the same thing with violence, I at least explained WHY I think it was so. Which is that a growing child is going to be stronger and have a higher pain tolerance. That at least explains why escalation of the violence may be required. You are not offering a similar explanation for your assertion. For example the removal of a privilege like television access, or access to pleasurable snack foods, can be implemented in an identical fashion on both.

But again like a few other attempts before, including calling it all "manipulation" I do not think finding a common trait between these things automatically makes them equivalent. Even if every approach (which I doubt, but imagine it for the purposes of argument) requires escalation...... there can be massive differences in such requirements between them. If one approach needs a lot of it, and another needs very little of it, then merely classing them both as requiring it will not be informative or useful at all.



Again no such assumption is required for what I am saying. For any given child we do not know when discipline will be required. You might NEVER need it. You might need it daily for every day of the childs life. Or anything in between on that continuum anywhere at all. The question remains whether on any point of that continuum whether a given approach required escalation, if so by how much, and if so can it reach a point where the power dynamic can switch. Certainly a lot of parents will find a point where their child can not only defend themselves but often fight back. And win. What then?



Except I have ignored no such thing. What I have been discussing, when you have not both been putting words in and taking words out of my mouth, is that it does not matter if the "exact same problems" exist from approach to approach. Because no one is claiming any approach makes every problem go away. What IS being claimed is that we can, and should, evaluate each problem type and work out which are the best approaches on each merit.

You keep talking in absolutes that are not present in anything I have said, and then acting like those absolutes are a problem in things I have espoused. Which is a truly odd approach to conversation.



Great. Now if you could just find someone who has been claiming or pretending it is..... I am sure they would benefit from hearing this information. Why you bring it up with me however is anyones guess including, I suspect, your own.



You do not appear to have read what you replied to so I will merely copy and paste it for you again:

"It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect."

And again, I did not just call anything lazy parenting, I explained exactly WHY I think it is so when I have in fact called it that.



The list of assumptions you have invented and merely pretended are inherent in anything I have said is getting rather long at this point. I am wondering if at this point it might be a more honest and mature approach to actually ask me what my assumptions behind any given claim are, rather than telling me what you think they are?



It would, as I keep telling you, entirely depend on how it is implemented, why, and to what effect. Inflicting violence on someone who can not defend themselves in any way is not really comparable with giving a person a choice, accepting when that choice is made, and then making choices of your own. And I do not really buy the "Well the child has the choice not to get slapped" narrative really.......... it strikes me as nonsensical in the same way as a mugger saying "Well I am giving you the choice not to get stabbed with this knife".



Well of course you can. Unless the issue is purely linguistic. The word "equate" can mean entirely equal. But a lot of people use it to mean "compare" or "comparable" too. It is rather a flexible word. So rather than risk a mere miscommunication I think I will avoid that word. What I do believe is that ALL human interactions share many commonalities, trends, factors and attributes. And depending on the contexts and goals, varying degrees of comparisons can be drawn between them and operated upon.

And the comparison I was drawing upon between discussing child discipline and the interaction example from the work place is that very often we afford people their rights AND their privileges. And we go out of our way sometimes in ways we do not have to do to afford them the latter. And so it is a perfectly valid approach, with both children and with adults, to remove one of those things if a situation suggests it is warranted. And if a person, child or coworker adult, is acting in an unethical or immoral fashion..... it is perfectly warranted to say "Fine, that is your choice, but I feel not at all compelled to invest my time and resources in affording you privileges that were never your right to begin with.... especially if you are insist on using what I give you to harm yourself or others".

Despite pouring mere derision on this, you have not actually stopped to explain what any actual issue with it may be.



Not at all, though you will forgive me if I do not take your evaluation seriously when you are pretending I have lost something you were pretending I never had in the first place. Hardly a transition really. But if you can not tell the difference between a statement like that, and outright insults like suggesting I have issues with unacceptable work place behavior then your linguistic issues are deeper than I have been accounting for. You have to HAVE a moral ground to presume to judge that of others. So perhaps clean up your own house before you run a dust checking finger of the side boards in anyone elses.

Just LOL tbh.
You can try to wordsmith your way out of the logical fallacy you have created for yourself but I'm afraid it wont wash with me.

You specifically said that things would be viewed differently if you slapped a female, now you fall back on average strengths. Can you move those goalposts back please, you are ruining our game of 5-a-side?

You *continually* use the example of an isolated slap to define the act of a slap as lazy parenting, WHEN NOT A SINGLE PERSON on here is advocating that. For those who slap, said slap forms part of controlling your children, its not the only thing they do and equally they do not do it on its own. The reason behind the slap is explained, just as you would explain why the child cannot have any sweets.

I will leave you to it as you continue to ignore the corrections to your unbalanced, incorrect argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not falling back on anything. Saying the same thing, but a different way, is still saying the same thing. The wordplay is yours not mine and only the goalposts at your end have been moved. In fact you seem intent on changing the shape of the ball too.

AGAIN the point I am making is violence is generally viewed worse when the victim is less capable of defending themselves against it than the perpetrator.

And in general the physical dynamic between men and women is an example of that. There is nothing sexist about acknowledging factual differences between the sexes. Much as you might need to pretend there is.

And GIVEN that dynamic in the evaluation of violence and GIVEN there is a large power differential between grown adults and children......... I feel this warrants some demand for justification of allowing violence in that dynamic. Justification you are dodging actually offering behind this "sexist" nonsense you are now claiming.

And no I am not "isolating" anything in general. But when making a greater point I can focus in on parts of it. Which is a different thing. And one of the things I would describe as "lazy parenting" is event based parenting.

I am not saying that is solely or only what a violence based approach to discipline is every time every where, as you are pretending, however.

I can not ignore what is not there, and demonstrably the one ignoring this is you...... so your parting shot is merely white noise to me, except to say I doubt you are going to "leave me" to anything. But I do always welcome a chance to test "nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet forum posting".

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, because it is not the dismissal of the opinion that I would be evaluating when making such a move. But the basis for that opinion. And while you keep retreating, on this thread and so many others, behind the "It is my opinion" narrative....... it is almost entirely NEVER your opinion that I am questioning in the first place. But the claims and statements you make WHILE expressing it.

For example if you merely say "My opinion is that slapping a child is fine, and can be effective and there is nothing wrong with it" Then fine, that is an opinion and you are welcome to it. However when WHILE expressing that opinion you make a statement like "Clearly it doesn't, or we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak." or "The majority of studies are from this source" or "The majority of studies do this....." you are making a direct claim about reality that is patently false. And THAT can be evaluated for the nonsense that it is without anyone whining about opinions and their right to them.

And yet, as you're so fond of reminding other people - just because you label something nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. You haven't been able to demonstrate or establish any any legitimacy for your claims other than suggesting you're a scientist and other people are lay people.

You're undoubtedly acutely aware that on the internet a person can claim whatever they like, it doesn't mean anyone is obliged to take them seriously, and yet you appear to imagine your claims to be a scientist, and your castigating people who have a different opinion to your own, as lay people, somehow lends your arguments any legitimacy.

You've never satisfactorily explained why anyone should consider your opinion more important than their own opinion of their own circumstances, which you aren't in a position to comment on in any scientific capacity. Sure, you have your opinion as a lay person, but it should be obvious to you why that isn't going to carry any weight in the context in which we are speaking.

And that would be a valid claim to make, if in fact you ever stopped to ask for my citations or research. You tend to choose to get personal before (or rather entirely in place of) doing that however. So you have no position at all to evaluate the basis of my views until you actually ask for them. So try it sometime.

What I suspect is in play however is that you WANT to imagine that I form conclusions based on no research and in order to maintain that narrative you can not permit yourself to actually ask for any. Because if I provide it, your narrative crumbles.

But if you want to address a claim I have made, and ask me for the arguments, evidence, data and/or reasons I think I have for making it..... then simply do. And if you feel you asked and I did not answer..... ask again.

But I don't need your citations or your research to draw conclusions about the legitimacy or credibility of your opinion. I still wouldn't dismiss you out of hand as a nut job simply because I don't share your opinion. Your opinion is of no value to me, whereas you appear to think it should be. That's really a problem for you, not me, particularly when you want to claim that smacking is harmful to children. I'm going to evaluate that claim on the basis of my experience and I'm going to dismiss it as nonsense. Whether it is or it isn't objectively nonsense is up to you to prove, and you simply can't prove it definitively without the requisite evidence, which you don't have.

Rather contrary to your earlier assertions that those who are innocent should have to prove their innocence as the way society functions, the reality is rather the opposite - I'm not making any claim, I'm only refuting the claim that smacking is harmful, and you would be aware of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've already pointed out - correlations aren't strong enough to support your claims, and they certainly do not imply causation.

Qualifications do matter. They just do not matter in many of the ways people pretend they do. For example a claim I make does not become more true just because I am qualified to make it. The truth value of the claim is ENTIRELY independent of who or what I am. Which is why I have never, at any point, ever informed you what my qualfiications actually even are. You neither know this, nor would you benefit from knowing.

But knowing that I am capable to speak, especially in areas of epidemiology, statistics, human psychology, the analysis and interpretation of scientific papers and methodology, and so forth should still be informative to you. It should be informative of the level you can speak to me at, which is always important in communication. And it should be informative that you will likely not get away with bluffing, lying, or making things up out of the ether. Which is, alas, what I have had to pull you up on on more than one occasion on this thread alone.

Your opinions are indeed informative of the level at which I should regard your opinions. I don't need to know your qualifications, which is why I was making the point that your claims to be a scientist and other people are lay people is quite perplexing. As I said - you know an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and yet you continue to do it. I'm not going to smack you for it though, I'll just give your posts the regard they deserve. I determine that criteria, not you, so when I dismiss your opinions as nonsense, the fact that you think they aren't, is entirely irrelevant.

Except I have done no such thing and this is just another example of what I have pulled you up on many times before.... which is your practice of saying X has attribute Y without offering a single piece of adhesive to make that label stick. You like to CALL things X Y or Z, but you never follow up in the next sentence / paragraph with an explanation of why it is X Y or Z. You throw the labels, and simply wish hard they will stick.

If you want to actually provide explanation evaluating my capabilities and showing what the evaluation is valid.... by all means try.

I have provided many explanations, many times. The fact that you dismiss my explanations and evaluations as nonsense doesn't mean they weren't provided.

No surprises at all given what I claimed was said, and what you followed up claiming was said, were the same thing. So what your issue is is still entirely unclear to me and, I suspect, to you too.

For example when I said "we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies." and you followed up with "parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers" then there is no real difference there. Yet you have exploded this into some narrative that I have been misrepresentative. Out of completely nothing at all. (no surprises there really).

But unless you want to pedantically equivicate over the difference between "should" and "could" your attempt to suggest I was misrepresenting what was said is as desperate as it is frankly erroneous.

It's not erronous, and you are misrepresenting her opinion. It goes beyond mere pedantry when you're taking their opinion out of context to present an entirely different narrative to their intent in order to dismiss them as a nut job. It was a good thing for me then that I conducted my own research and found that her research is in line with international best practice which actually supports her ideas. I don't agree with what she's doing, and I couldn't ever see myself availing of her services, but I understand why people who aren't me would want to avail of her services - because they have different objectives for their children's outcomes as adults and different objectives for the kind of society they want their children to grow up in and participate in as adults. It's actually not at all different from your earlier suggestions that conversations around sex and sexuality should be an ongoing and open conversation.

I don't disagree with everything you say, and I don't disagree just for the sake of it, but when I do disagree, I'll let you know.

Except I do no such thing. Rather what happens is you tend to get personal when you realize you can not actually rebut the points I have made. That or you ignore entire posts and/or the majority of their content in order to "reset" the discussion on points you now want to avoid. As you have done in this thread.

As for "everyone else has been civil" then if you think a line like "you are probably well versed in dealing with HR for your unacceptable work place behavior." is civil then you either operate under a MASSIVELY different definition of the word to me..... or you basically just see what you want to see, when you want to see it.

As I suggested above, when I disagree with your opinion I'll let you know. I don't have time to waste responding to each and every single point, and more often I simply don't care enough to respond to a lot of your points. Of course that explanation isn't going to suit your narrative, but given that I'm not being paid for my time here, and you're not paying for my time, you're lucky to get what you're getting, which has been an attempt at civil conversation.

Our differences in standards it appears aren't just limited to parenting, it appears we also do indeed have different standards when it comes to how we evaluate civil discussion and conversation. I don't see anything untoward or insulting with your example you've given above. Perhaps if you were to explain why you find it uncivil, I might understand from your perspective why you consider it uncivil. You haven't provided any explanation or context for it so you're really not in any position to criticise other people for not providing context or an explanation for their opinions.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet, as you're so fond of reminding other people - just because you label something nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. You haven't been able to demonstrate or establish any any legitimacy for your claims other than suggesting you're a scientist and other people are lay people.

Which is at this point a complete and outright lie from you because there is nothing I have called nonsense on this thread without then ALSO explaing why it is nonsense. And that is commonly the difference between us when we have any discussions. You stop at calling it "nonsense" and I go further.

The reason it is nonsense is that it simply is not a criteria used anywhere in science, including the social sciences where you falsely claimed the methodologies of science are not transferred, to establish such a dynamic. The claim "If X causes Y we should see the majority doing Y" is simply an assertion you made and have not defended and established as true ANYWHERE. That is what is nonsense.

Let us jump away from the subject of child discipline since it triggers you so much and move to a different one to example this. Bacon was recently classed as a group 1 carcinogen. Which means that we are as certain as certain gets in science that it causes cancer. Now where are the ill informed people jumping up to say "Nonsense, if bacon causes cancer then we would see the majority of bacon eaters with cancer!!!".

Few are doing that because it is a nonsense evaluation. It simply is not true that saying "X causes Y" means the majority will manifest Y. In fact even if ZERO people develop that cancer from a tested population in the next decade, Bacon would likely STILL remain classed a group 1 carcinogen. Because scientists, unlike you, understand "majority" is not required.

The same is true here. The suggestion the use of violence teaches children to use violence as a means of conflict resolution is not a suggest that requires, as you claimed, "we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak.". Your claim is false. Baseless. Unsubstantiated. Nonsense. And I am not, as you so blatantly lie here, merely calling it nonsense to make it nonsense. I am doing what you never do. Explaining exactly WHY it is nonsense.

Try it sometime.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're undoubtedly acutely aware that on the internet a person can claim whatever they like, it doesn't mean anyone is obliged to take them seriously, and yet you appear to imagine your claims to be a scientist, and your castigating people who have a different opinion to your own, as lay people, somehow lends your arguments any legitimacy.

This is, again, an outright lie from you. Made more egregious by the fact to make this lie you have to simply ignore everything I just wrote that you are pretending to reply to. I just explained not just, but exactly WHY, qualifications do not lend arguments legitimacy. But you come right back outright lying that that is what I am doing. For. Shame.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I don't need your citations or your research to draw conclusions about the legitimacy or credibility of your opinion.

Well don't you just love having your cake and eating it too? In one breath you claim I am speaking "on the basis of no research whatsoever" and then when I offer it you turn around and claim you do not need it or want it anyway. Talk about stacking the deck in your imaginary favor.

But like it or not the claim remains false. I do have arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to offer to defend my positions. And you not asking for it, or claiming you do not want or need it, is not evidence I do not have it. It is just evidence you do not care either way whether I have it or not as that gets in the way of you claiming I do not. Which is what you are actually way more interested in doing: Misrepresentation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's really a problem for you, not me, particularly when you want to claim that smacking is harmful to children. I'm going to evaluate that claim on the basis of my experience and I'm going to dismiss it as nonsense.

Which is one of the reasons I label you as "anti science" because this is, essentially, what science is for. To stop personal bias and false extrapolations from personal experience, from getting in the way of us discovering what is actually true. That you admit your anti science and fundamentalism in this way is at least useful, but it remains your problem not mine as you claim.

The problem is peoples personal experience is misleading. Often massively so. And the methodology of science allows us to go past mere personal experience and look at what is actually true. And time and time again the methodology of science has shown claims extrapolated from personal experience to simply be false. The difference then comes between people who dig down on their own falsehoods.......... and those who remain open minded enough to accept as true even that which is abrasive to their personal realities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather contrary to your earlier assertions that those who are innocent should have to prove their innocence as the way society functions, the reality is rather the opposite - I'm not making any claim, I'm only refuting the claim that smacking is harmful, and you would be aware of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've already pointed out - correlations aren't strong enough to support your claims, and they certainly do not imply causation.

Says the one correlating the personal anecdote of one person, themselves, with reality. But I do not think you can shirk the onus of evidence so easily. We live in a society that generally recognizes not just the issue of violence (which is why it is illegal in so many situations) but even more so violence where the perpetrator has power over the victim. So the onus of justification here is not described by this fallacious "the innocent have to prove their innocence" but the exact opposite. Some justification for the use of violence is required. And you do not appear to have it to provide.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

which is why I was making the point that your claims to be a scientist and other people are lay people is quite perplexing.

I can somewhat understand why it might be perplexing to a single individual here and there. Not so much after it has been explained however. So I will merely copy and past the text you appear to have missed and/or contrived to ignore:

"Qualifications do matter. They just do not matter in many of the ways people pretend they do. For example a claim I make does not become more true just because I am qualified to make it. The truth value of the claim is ENTIRELY independent of who or what I am. Which is why I have never, at any point, ever informed you what my qualfiications actually even are. You neither know this, nor would you benefit from knowing.

But knowing that I am capable to speak, especially in areas of epidemiology, statistics, human psychology, the analysis and interpretation of scientific papers and methodology, and so forth should still be informative to you. It should be informative of the level you can speak to me at, which is always important in communication. And it should be informative that you will likely not get away with bluffing, lying, or making things up out of the ether. Which is, alas, what I have had to pull you up on on more than one occasion on this thread alone. "

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I said - you know an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and yet you continue to do it.

Another outright lie. Never did this on the thread. Ever. Let alone continuously. I am not convinced you even know what "argument from authority" even means at this point. But again my points and posts are not nonsense just because you shout that word at them with no substance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have provided many explanations, many times. The fact that you dismiss my explanations and evaluations as nonsense doesn't mean they weren't provided.

You have not provided them though, which is the problem. You have asserted the existence of certain criteria, measurements, and expectations that simply are not used in reality. And when called on them you have done anything BUT provide explanations for them. You have either 1) entirely ignored the content ofthe post that questioned them or 2) merely re-asserted them again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not erronous, and you are misrepresenting her opinion.

Except yes it is, and no I am not. And merely repearing this accusation does not make it more true. AGAIN here is what I said and what you said side by side..........

1) "we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies."
2) "parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers"

................ and they are the SAME THING. How can I be misrepresenting what someone said, if I am saying they said what they in fact did say? Are you even TRYING to make sense at this point? Or do you just like the idea of claiming people are misrepresenting regardless of whether they actually are, because it sounds like you are making an argument?

Nothing I said about it is a misrepresentation. You just disagree with my evaluation of what was said. Which is a different thing entirely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I suggested above, when I disagree with your opinion I'll let you know.

Great then I will have to assume that everything I said in the post you ignored 90% or more of you are in fact in entire agreement with. Because, by your own claim here, if you did not disagree with it you would have let me know. Which you did not do. Lovely stuff.

But that you see nothing uncivil in suggesting, based on nothing at all, that another person commonly engages in unacceptable workplace behavior, especially to the point HR commonly has to get involved, does indeed show we work on different definitions of what it means to be civil. Because such unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on a persons behavior and character are sure as hell not it.

yourdeadwright

farmerwifelet wrote: »

I think parenting classes should be mandatory - and I don't mean the baby ones when you are expecting more on the lines of triple p parenting.  Just because you can have a child doesn't automatically mean you know how to raise one!

I think it would benefit parents and when they choose their own parenting style then fair enough but some basics would be great for all.

Its the must natural thing in the world and its ok to get wrong every now and again to ,
Show your kids how to be good people its not rocket science , we have been doing it since time began
Mandatory classes is silly,
who teaches them ? how do you know the teacher is a successful parents ,
all kids are different not everything that works for one child works for another ,

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great then I will have to assume that everything I said in the post you ignored 90% or more of you are in fact in entire agreement with. Because, by your own claim here, if you did not disagree with it you would have let me know. Which you did not do. Lovely stuff.

At this point I have to assume you're just taking the proverbial, because when you criticise peoples observations on the basis that you claim they're only seeing what they want to see, and then going on to suggest that science helps us mitigate the introduction of personal bias (in the same post!!), by your own standards - you are an anti-science fundamentalist

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is one of the reasons I label you as "anti science" because this is, essentially, what science is for. To stop personal bias and false extrapolations from personal experience, from getting in the way of us discovering what is actually true. That you admit your anti science and fundamentalism in this way is at least useful, but it remains your problem not mine as you claim.

The problem is peoples personal experience is misleading. Often massively so. And the methodology of science allows us to go past mere personal experience and look at what is actually true. And time and time again the methodology of science has shown claims extrapolated from personal experience to simply be false. The difference then comes between people who dig down on their own falsehoods.......... and those who remain open minded enough to accept as true even that which is abrasive to their personal realities.

That's not me putting words in your mouth or claiming you said something you didn't or any of the rest of it, and no amount of length in your posts is going to distract from what you have just done. Again, I wouldn't slap you for it, but I'll leave you to think about the consequences of your own actions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that you see nothing uncivil in suggesting, based on nothing at all, that another person commonly engages in unacceptable workplace behavior, especially to the point HR commonly has to get involved, does indeed show we work on different definitions of what it means to be civil. Because such unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on a persons behavior and character are sure as hell not it.

Have you asked yourself why someone would assume you commonly engage in unacceptable workplace behaviour? I still don't see what's uncivil about it. If someone were to assume I commonly engaged in unacceptable workplace behaviour, depending upon my relationship to them, I might ask them why they think that. If it's just someone on the internet is making what you feel are unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on your behaviour and character then I might respectfully suggest that you grow a thicker skin which would prevent you from being so easily triggered by the opinions of anonymous online strangers who really have no input into your life whatsoever.

I dunno does that work for you because we're obviously two very different people, but it sure as hell works for me, and maybe you might try it sometime. In the meantime, I think this discussion has come to the point where I'm no longer interested in continuing to engage with you, and the only reason I'm explicitly telling you that is so you don't go making up your own narratives and accusing me of leaving without any explanation or running away from the discussion. I simply have better things to be doing. It also saves you the time I have no doubt you will take to write another lengthy response, which I will never read, but by all means don't let my lack of interest stop you, it hasn't so far.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At this point I have to assume you're just taking the proverbial, because when you criticise peoples observations on the basis that you claim they're only seeing what they want to see, and then going on to suggest that science helps us mitigate the introduction of personal bias (in the same post!!), by your own standards - you are an anti-science fundamentalist

Well just like the conversation we had about "nonsense" the difference is between declaring people to be doing that, and actually showing they have done that. And just like the discussion of" nonsense", you have opted not to do the latter.

I see nothing logically invalid about the statement I made however, so I am not sure what your point is. You said "If you see X, you will do Y". You did not do Y, so I have to assume you did not see X. Where is the logic fail there?

But yes science very much is in the business of mediating our personal experience and showing it at times to be invalid. And if you think violence against children is not an issue based on an N of 1, then it is worth pointing out that science is better at measuring these things at the level of groups and populations, than some biased interpretation of ones own experiences.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not me putting words in your mouth or claiming you said something you didn't or any of the rest of it, and no amount of length in your posts is going to distract from what you have just done. Again, I wouldn't slap you for it, but I'll leave you to think about the consequences of your own actions.

Unclear what you are talking about here. The text you are quoting from me has NOTHING in it that matchs the reply you just wrote to it. Also I am not sure what the contrived vagueness here is meant to achieve. "what you have just done"? What is that exactly? You are not at all clear here. I fear some of discussion has only occured in your head and no one else, least of all me, is privy to the bits you are now responding to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why someone would assume you commonly engage in unacceptable workplace behaviour?

I do not assume they do think that at all. Rather more likely is they just wanted to throw out some ad hominem invective at a school yard level. I see nothing in the users post AT ALL to validate any assumption he ACTUALLY thinks this. It was just a pointless dig for filler.

And my evaluation of that does not require ANY of the "triggered" or "thinker skin" narratives you have just invented. My evaluation of a behaviour as uncivil does not actually require I be upset by it. It is, I have noticed after 25 years of using the internet in various forms...... seemingly 100% impossible for any stranger to say anything on the internet that in any way upset me. It seemingly can not be done. You are welcome to try, though with due care as you got yourself unfortunately banned for a few days last time you tried and I would not like to see that happen again.

To push the thread back on topic however I would summarize the wholly false claims you have made and not yet substantiated thus far however. Maybe you will later.

1) You think the competency of a psychologist that works with children can be evaluated based on their ending an adult only relationship.
2) You think personal experience of a psychologist will compromise their objectivity or compel them to make it "all about them".
3) You think the claim that violence against children teaches children to use violence somehow means we should expect the majority to be engaged in violence.
4) You have claimed the "majority" of studies and papers on this topic of slapping children A) Share a common trait and come from a single source.
5) You appear to think science is unable to coherently measure outcomes of differing parenting modalities at all.
6) You dismiss the criteria used to even engage in such measurements without A) saying what is wrong with them or suggesting better ones.
7) You suggest that a relationship being terminated is a failure of some sort to put theory into practice as if an ongoing healthy relationship is the only measure of a successful application of such therapies.
8) You claim "the first questions any interviewer would ask when they ask the candidate to tell them a bit about themselves. It's expected that their relationship with their parents and their own family would be a relevant consideration in determining their suitability for employment." without showing that question or expectation is in play AT ALL.

Another thread I wind up unfollowing because the multi-quoting dissertations make trying to contribute pointless.

Shemale

donegaLroad wrote: »

Spare the rod and spoil the child has long thought to be unture.

Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)

Nonsense, do you actually believe people born in 70s and 80s are more aggressive than kids born later?

Shemale

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

There's ways to discipline kids other than physically. Change the WiFi password, remove iPad/phone/Xbox whatever, make it a long time thing, Eg. A week. Longer lasting behavioural correction as opposed to a stinging arse for five minutes.

Maybe iPad/phone/Xbox is the problem, nothing wrong with slapping a kid if its an absolute last resort.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shemale wrote: »

Nonsense, do you actually believe people born in 70s and 80s are more aggressive than kids born later?

It certainly would not be an unfounded belief. But it would come down to how you measure it and what you think explains it.

For example the BBC wrote an article about how children are less likely in the modern world to be the victim of violence. Which would seem to suggest aggression is down. But the BBC did suggest a few other explanations which is that in places like the US the children are also fatter than before and playing more computer games indoors and alone. So many of them are too isolated, and too fat, to be going around experiencing or perpetuating violence.

Psychology Today did write a good article on the subject too. Noting that "our world has never been less violent – except in news media and entertainment." where the media makes us think violence is up, when it is in fact down.

Steven Pinker wrote a book on the subject too called "The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined" which also shows we have a trend over long and short periods of time of declining violence. This is summarized in a talk he makes here, though the entire audio book is also on you tube.

The main issue however is that a statement like "Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)" could be true even if we say NO change in aggression and violence between the 70s and 80s. Because it is not a factor acting in isolation.

We had the completely nonsense and unsubstanatited claim trotted out in this thread that if violence based discipline techniques led to aggression, we would expect the majority of people to be smacking the heads off each other. This absolutely nonsense claim ignores many aspects of reality and is itself based on nothing in reality.

The reality is that there are MANY factors influencing how much aggression we see in a society. And if one thing reduces it (such as changing how we use violence in child rearing) something else may increase it (such as higher family pressures in terms of stress and financial concerns in a modern world).

So it is hard to pin changes.... or no changes...... onto any one factor in particular. But difficult does not mean impossible and there is a good article here summarizing a chunk of current knowledge and thought on the subject.

Whispered

Would be interested to hear what people think of suggestions that shaming and excluding (as with time out) can cause as much psychological damage as slapping and that in some casses cortisol levels stay elevated for longer. I'm saying suggestion because I cannot remember where I read it.
I'm anti slapping btw but would agree that other forms of punishment can cause similar issues.
Also the efficiency of natural/logical consequences vs enforced consequences.

nozzferrahhtoo

Whispered wrote: »

Would be interested to hear what people think of suggestions that shaming and excluding (as with time out) can cause as much psychological damage as slapping and that in some casses cortisol levels stay elevated for longer. I'm saying suggestion because I cannot remember where I read it.

I have not read so much on it so I remain just open to it at this time. I have read related studies though such as the results of putting excluded people under brain scanning. And it is interesting that social exclusion lights up many of the same parts of our brain that light up during physical pain.

So it is certainly worth following up on with more study and evaluation. But it would be interesting also to see what they mean by "Psychological damage" exactly. For example the link I offered above broke that down with specifics. They broke down "the research on associations between physical punishment and various psychopathology and sociopathy" for example.

As for shame I know even less about that but the message i try to convey through all my approaches to discipline with my own children is that there is no shame at all in doing the wrong thing or doing a bad thing. But there IS shame in continuing to do it, not learning from it, or not acknowledging what you did wrong and why it was wrong.

Very interesting how shame plays a role in the human psyche though. Even to the point of what we do to ourselves. There was a study recently which was designed in such a way that it tested, without the subjects knowing it was what was being tested, honesty.

They found that if you do something as simple as stick a picture of a pair of human eyes on a wall in the test room...... there is a marked increase in the honesty of the subjects. And since the eyes are only a picture..... it has implications for how we view shame and judgement in ourselves rather than from actual other people.

4ensic15

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Graces7

4ensic15 wrote: »

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Reading the article there is rather more to it and more serious than your post shows. Hitting with a cricket bat? Needs investigation. That is extreme and dangerous.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

4ensic15 wrote: »

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

GreeBo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

Smacking DOES NOT EQUAL child abuse.

But since that's already been pointed out multiple times, I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Hector Bellend

Once little Johnny realises that a good crack on the arse is in store, he'll be fine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

GreeBo wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

Smacking DOES NOT EQUAL child abuse.

But since that's already been pointed out multiple times, I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Hitting a child in the head with a cricket bat DOES NOT EQUAL smacking...

Eggs For Dinner

I never hit or smacked my kids, but I disciplined them all the time. They knew what was expected of them and knew the consequences of their actions. No football training, no TV, no sweets, no X Box. Once you explained what was happening and why, "hitting" never became a necessity

artvanderlay

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I would like to propose beatings of the parents

I agree 100%. It's like when a dog sh*ts on a pavement, and it's not picked up. It's not the dogs fault; it's a dog. It's the owners responsiblity and the owner's face should be rubbed in the **** to learn 'em! (and yes I did walk in dog **** today:mad:)

4ensic15

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

If a kid was hit on the head with a cricket bat he wouldn't be able to go squealing to the social services about it. The most he got was a light tap on the head. He is a lazy good for nothing liar. There is an industry being formed out of so-called "vulnerable" children. Little ffers like him know how to game the system. Nobody could survive being hit on the head with a cricket bat.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah right, because with a cricket bat there is only two settings "Tap" and "Fatal". Clearly nothing in between exists.

Yeah no one every survives being hit on the head with a cricket bat. Totally unheard of. Never happens. Ever. Not even once.

machiavellianme

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

There's ways to discipline kids other than physically. Change the WiFi password, remove iPad/phone/Xbox whatever, make it a long time thing, Eg. A week. Longer lasting behavioural correction as opposed to a stinging arse for five minutes.

Sure, because everyone who ever had to endure a torturous week without WiFi because they set fire to their neighbours bin will remember that week forever! Whereas those that got a rap of the wooden spoon will quickly forget why they were disciplined and be back re-offending within the hour and won't be posting on the Internet about it 30 years later. I know which one is likely to make an impression (in more ways than one) and its not the one you think.

4ensic15

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah right, because with a cricket bat there is only two settings "Tap" and "Fatal". Clearly nothing in between exists.

Yeah no one every survives being hit on the head with a cricket bat. Totally unheard of. Never happens. Ever. Not even once.

Obviously, you have never been hit on the head with a cricket bat.

nozzferrahhtoo

Obviously, that does not in any way negate or falsify the point I just made. Or even, lets face it, address it at all.

The reality outside your fantastical assertions however is that impacts on the head with cricket bats is not all that uncommon, and many people die from it, and many people do not. Your assertion that no one ever survives it, or can survive it, is demonstrably false and based on zero substantiation of any kind.

Billy86

4ensic15 wrote: »

Obviously, you have never been hit on the head with a cricket bat.

I have!

Got a nice trip to hospital and concussion out of it and all.

nozzferrahhtoo

And how is it being dead? Given you could not POSSIBLY have survived it? Rigor Mortis make it hard to type?

4ensic15

Billy86 wrote: »

I have!

Got a nice trip to hospital and concussion out of it and all.

Yes, and You weren't able to go and blab to the social services about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Quite telling that a child being abused, who seeks help for this, is being described as "squealing" and "blabbing" and so forth. The real language of the bullying world that, demeaning the victim when they seek help.

Thankfully more and more I see people simply not getting away with that narrative. Not getting away with victim blaming. Not getting away with the nonsense that a person in need..... be you a child getting abused, or an adult undergoing sexual misconduct, or a man with emotional or mental difficulties.............. reaching out for help is someone or something to be demeaned, insulted, pitied or disrespected.

4ensic15

The politically correct classes insist on allowing every little liar with a whinge, make an attack on family life with their superior smug "I know best" attitude. A liar is a liar.

nozzferrahhtoo

I would agree a liar is indeed a liar, but I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. So the onus would be on you to show the person is, in fact, lying. This you have not done.

Rather you have chosen instead to go with a demonstrably false statement that being hit on the head with a cricket bat is, in every case, fatal..... so as to therefore assume the child to be lying given the child is, clearly, not dead.