Author Topic: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths  (Read 8306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #203 on: December 05, 2011, 06:24:14 PM »
I still wonder about a libertarian who wants the government to stay out of our lives when it comes to helping people with stuff like health care,  but be able to punish someone by injecting them with dangerous hormone drugs. You can't get more into someone's life health-wise than that.....

As for leveling the field justice-wise, police and the courts could do a much better job of catching and locking up or otherwise dealing with criminals if there were fewer criminals. That is, decriminalize drugs, gambling and prostitution, regulate them and then let the police get on with the business of protecting the public from rapists and murderers. Prosecute crimes of personal violence strictly with jail time but make people pay fines or work off property crime. 

We need to stop responding to antisocial behavior like we are living in the middle ages where we need to beat the sin or scare the demons out of people. Lots of people end up in jails because it is the social service of last resort in the US. Mental health treatment, drug and alcohol counseling, better sex ed, and vocational job training would reduce the crime rate more than harsher punishments, and be way cheaper.

I thought the Libertarian ideas matched mines better than other designations, but hey, I'm a free thinker and an individual so at times I won't walk anyone's "party line" but my own. I simply want less rules and at times stricter enforcement of the rules that would then be in place. Those who would violate the rights and freedoms of others need not be treated by our enforcement system as having the same rights and priviledges as the law abiding, non-threatening citizens.
I agree, decriminalization would be a good thing and preemptive measures should be employed more. We have too many laws that result in too many nonviolent perps being incarcerated and criminalized by the system.


We could learn from how they deal with crime in other countries like Denmark, Norway and Japan, where they don't lock up so many, hardly ever execute anyone and have much lower crime rates.

Apples to oranges. America is way too big and diverse (both ethnically, religiously, and economically) to enact the type the same types of plans that work in the nations you described. Now, individual states or regions of the country could and maybe that ought to be looked at, but asking for that to be done at the Federal level for a nation as large and diversely complex as the USA is in my opinion a fool's task.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #204 on: December 06, 2011, 10:46:26 AM »
Apples to oranges. America is way too big and diverse (both ethnically, religiously, and economically) to enact the type the same types of plans that work in the nations you described.

malarkey.  what does diversity have to do with it?

...in my opinion a fool's task. 

You're just waving your hand at it and saying "that's too hard, it won't work", without even trying or trying to explain why not.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #205 on: December 06, 2011, 11:42:03 AM »
Apples to oranges. America is way too big and diverse (both ethnically, religiously, and economically) to enact the type the same types of plans that work in the nations you described.

malarkey.  what does diversity have to do with it?

...in my opinion a fool's task. 

You're just waving your hand at it and saying "that's too hard, it won't work", without even trying or trying to explain why not.

The more socially, economically, ethnically diverse, and LARGE a population is, the more difficult it is to enact all-encompassing, effective, and relevant programs that meets the needs of all facets of the society.
I'm not saying it's too hard, but what I am saying is that in order to be most effective and equitable, that the plans need to implemented on a smaller more regional scale verses doing so on a national scale. You cannot hope to be successful with a one size fits all course of action for a population as diverse as the USA's. Plans and programs that are needed and effective in Grenich, CT are not going to be what the doctor order for places like Birmingham, AL, Jackson, MS, and places like that.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #206 on: December 06, 2011, 12:07:09 PM »
That has nothing to do with what nogodsforme said:
We could learn from how they deal with crime in other countries like Denmark, Norway and Japan, where they don't lock up so many, hardly ever execute anyone and have much lower crime rates.

Your reply to that was "we're too diverse".  I still say malarkey.  In fact, I say malarkey even louder:
MALARKEY!

She said, "we could learn".  We could.  Diversity has nothing to do with it.  She made not prescriptions about implementing a one size fits all solution.  That was your assumption.

You are saying we are too diverse to lock up fewer people.  I find that to be an utter non sequitur.
"Man, there is such diversity in the US, we just have to lock more people up."

You are saying we are too diverse to stop executing people.  I find that to be an utter non sequitur.
"Man, there is such diversity in the US, we just have to kill some people."

What has diversity to do with it? 

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in locking up lots of people or executing lots of people[1].  I'm saying, you should't believe it for the reason you gave.  Because the reason you gave makes no sense. 

And you need to read more carefully.

 1. though I do think both are bad ideas
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #207 on: December 06, 2011, 03:14:27 PM »
That has nothing to do with what nogodsforme said:
We could learn from how they deal with crime in other countries like Denmark, Norway and Japan, where they don't lock up so many, hardly ever execute anyone and have much lower crime rates.

Your reply to that was "we're too diverse".  I still say malarkey.  In fact, I say malarkey even louder:
MALARKEY!

She said, "we could learn".  We could.  Diversity has nothing to do with it.  She made not prescriptions about implementing a one size fits all solution.  That was your assumption.

And you need to read more carefully.

You are right!
She was specific in what she was talking about when she said "we could learn from how they deal with crime in other countries like Denmark, Norway and Japan, where they don't lock up so many, hardly ever execute anyone and have much lower crime rates." My response was anything but and didn't focus on the issues (dealing with crime, incarceration, and decriminalization) that she was focusing on and instead went into dealing with social programs, monetary policy, etc. My bad. :-\


You are saying we are too diverse to lock up fewer people.  I find that to be an utter non sequitur.
"Man, there is such diversity in the US, we just have to lock more people up."

You are saying we are too diverse to stop executing people.  I find that to be an utter non sequitur.
"Man, there is such diversity in the US, we just have to kill some people."

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in locking up lots of people or executing lots of people[1].  I'm saying, you should't believe it for the reason you gave.  Because the reason you gave makes no sense. 
 1. though I do think both are bad ideas

I was saying no such thing. I actually agreed that locking up less people is a good idea. Notice my words:
Quote
I agree, decriminalization would be a good thing and preemptive measures should be employed more. We have too many laws that result in too many nonviolent perps being incarcerated and criminalized by the system.


My only appparent disagreement with NG was on how those that are lock up can and should be punished and rehabilitated.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #208 on: December 06, 2011, 03:31:29 PM »
Maybe you have a point. We should not look at European countries. They are not diverse enough or populated enough. Are there any countries with populations higher than the US and with as much diversity?

It would be hard to find a country more diverse than India, with hundreds of different languages, ethnic groups, religions, etc. And it has a billion people, nearly four times the US population. India has lots of social problems, extreme poverty, social stratification, discrimination against women and minorities.

Yet.

India has fewer people in prison than the US.  US and China vie for number one in numbers incarcerated.

India has executed one person since 1995. The US executed 56 people in 1995 alone. They have capital punishment on the books, but like Japan, they reserve it for the most horrible cases of crime.  Last year the US executed 46 people. This year we have executed 30 some people so far.

My point is not to make a pro or anti death penalty argument. But it does seem that it might be possible to deal with crime and criminals differently than we do.

In the US we like spending lots of money on things that sound good as slogans and feel gratifying in the abstract (three strikes and you're out! lock 'em up and throw away the keys! castrate rapists! hang 'em high! ) But how do you implement what that looks good on a bumper sticker? Does that easy stuff really work?

Is it worth the millions it will cost to lock up some 20 year old idiot for the next 60 years for robbing three pizza trucks with a gun?  Do you really think he is going to be doing that when he is 50? 

Trying to imprison people on the cheap is awful. Have you visited a prison lately? I have. The myth of the luxurious prison for average prisoners is just that-- a myth. One tv set in a group room. Nasty bologna sandwiches and a hard apple for lunch. Dangerous, scary roommates. Who wants to be a prison guard in a foul, dirty, germ-filled, overcrowded prison where the inmates are given no recreation or education, bad cheap food and limited medical care?

Imposing harsher sentences and punishments is costly in money and human terms. If it doesn't even accomplish what you want (less crime) why do it? Without looking at who does crime and why, we are only going to get revenge, not rehabilitation or reduced crime rates.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #209 on: December 06, 2011, 04:11:34 PM »
I was saying no such thing. I actually agreed that locking up less people is a good idea.

I guess I need to read a little more carefully too...
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #210 on: December 07, 2011, 06:05:11 PM »
Hi TruthOT.

Two very long posts from you, yet there seems little point in replying in detail; as you say:
Quote
In all fairness I have read very little of what has been put up to support your position and my OPINIONS, which is all they are admittedly, has been gleaned not from studies, but rather real life/real world experiences, observations, and practical applications where the results appear to be evident. 
So this is like arguing with a christian; on our side we've posited a proposition ("the deliberate infliction of pain on children carries an unacceptable risk of long-term psychological harm"), and we've presented a load of objective evidence from the world of developmental psychology to support our position.

And you respond only with your personal experiences (both as a child who was whipped and as a parent who whips) and your unsupported beliefs.

You haven't read the evidence we've provided, and you've provided no counter-evidence.

So there doesn't seem to be any way to proceed, does there? Your head is firmly buried in the sand; the only weapon we have is the evidence, but if you refuse to look at it, we have a stalemate.

So the ball's in your court, TruthOT.

If I may borrow your macho mindset for a moment, you have the option here to man up. Accept that you may be wrong, take your head out of the sand and without prejudice*, look the evidence in the face.

Then draw a rational conclusion from it, whether you like the conclusion or not.

You got the balls for that, Darryl?

Gnu.

* "without prejudice" - I emphasize this because you've already stated several times that you don't trust these kind of authorities:

Tell me, what make these sources credible. Are the "experts" parents that have raised a multitude of children that have turned out demonstratively better than children reared differently? Just wondering..... <snip> From what I can see on the surface i always felt that the researchers and self proclaimed experts were very relateble to me and at time didn't even have kids. How can they be trusted?

Developmental psychologists do not need to be parents. Science doesn't depend on personal experience. Science looks at the evidence. Back to square one.


PS I'll reply to a few points in your posts later, but it's all a little irrelevant to the point I've made here.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 06:24:29 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #211 on: December 07, 2011, 06:19:19 PM »
Gnu, I'll man up and look at some studies. Who knows, maybe those studies can help me help my kids develop into better adults. I'm game!

You made the analogy of my citing personal experience and real life observable scenarios as being one and the same with a Christian that responds with no real life, historical, testable, observable, or tangible data. Such a comparision is a total mischaractorization as real life observations of multiple situations involving people that are living today is solid evidence that should not be dismissed the way one would dismiss a person that tauts a book written by others such as the bible can be. 

BTW, wouldn't anything that can be tested, observed, and repeated in a reasonably controlled setting be considered as just as scientific as the studies you propose?

Can you send me the link that specifically discusses this:

 ("the deliberate infliction of pain on children carries an unacceptable risk of long-term psychological harm"),

I'm interested in what is termed as unacceptable as well as what the specific risks are. Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 06:20:59 PM by Truth OT »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #212 on: December 07, 2011, 07:11:01 PM »
Quote
Gnu, I'll man up and look at some studies.
OK.

Quote
Such a comparision is a total mischaractorization as real life observations of multiple situations involving people that are living today is solid evidence that should not be dismissed the way one would dismiss a person that tauts a book written by others such as the bible can be.
Meh. The point stands, we've presented loads of evidence, you've presented your personal experience and beliefs.

Quote
Can you send me the link that specifically discusses this:  ("the deliberate infliction of pain on children carries an unacceptable risk of long-term psychological harm")
What link? Read the thread; that statement of mine is the distillation of what I, CG, NoGods et al have been arguing all along. (They are welcome to correct me if I'm misrepresenting them).

Quote
I'm interested in what is termed as unacceptable
I may not accept X. You may not accept Y. Society may not accept Z. I'm not sure what your point is?

Quote
as well as what the specific risks are. 
Then read the thread (this post and this post have links). The evidence has been presented. Or google it. It's all there.

 
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 07:32:45 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #213 on: December 07, 2011, 07:54:09 PM »
Can you send me the link that specifically discusses this:

 ("the deliberate infliction of pain on children carries an unacceptable risk of long-term psychological harm"),

I sure can. I posted a news article about research related to this on a different page in this thread. My bold below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/26/health/main513469.shtml

Quote
After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience.

"Children become aggressive, delinquent, and have mental health problems, both in childhood and in adulthood," Elizabeth Gershoff, researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, told CBS Radio News.

The psychologist found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands.

I would think that parents would want to stop spanking after reading that, because a child's mental health is more important than their quick compliance with rules (which can be achieved through the use of time-outs instead).
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #214 on: December 07, 2011, 08:44:07 PM »

I sure can. I posted a news article about research related to this on a different page in this thread. My bold below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/26/health/main513469.shtml

thanks CG, I've posted the entire article below so that it can be seen in full context.

Quote
February 11, 2009  Spanking May Cause Long-Term Harm
By Lloyd de Vries
  After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience.

"Children become aggressive, delinquent, and have mental health problems, both in childhood and in adulthood," Elizabeth Gershoff, researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, told CBS Radio News.

The psychologist found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands.

"Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals," she wrote in the new edition of the American Psychological Association's bimonthly journal.

Her analysis, one of the most comprehensive ever on the topic of spanking in America, was accompanied in the Psychological Bulletin by a critique from three other psychologists.

They defend mild to moderate spanking as a viable disciplinary option, especially for children 2 to 6, but advise parents with abusive tendencies to avoid spanking altogether.

Gershoff spent five years on her project, analyzing 88 studies of corporal punishment conducted since 1938. The studies tracked both the short- and long-term effects of spanking on children.

Gershoff stopped short of endorsing a legal ban on parental corporal punishment.

"When parents do use it in conjunction with reasoning and time-out and other kinds of punishments there is some reasoning to suggest that it can be effective in getting children to comply right away," she said, "but the problem is, it doesn't lead to long-term compliance."

Gershoff doubts the United States would emulate a group of European countries in taking that step. However, she urged parents who spank to reconsider their options.

"When they're in a situation where they're considering spanking, think of something else to do — leave the room, count to 10, and come back again," Gershoff said in an interview Tuesday. "The risk is just too great."

Several major national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have taken an official stand against corporal punishment by parents. The psychological association has not taken a stance, though it is on record opposing corporal punishment at schools and other institutions.

Robert Larzelere, a psychology professor at the Nebraska Medical Center, was one of the three experts critiquing Gershoff's findings. He noted that while she found links between spanking and negative behaviors, she did not assert categorically that spanking caused those behaviors.

Larzelere, in an interview, said he remains convinced that mild, non-abusive spanking can be an effective reinforcement of nonphysical disciplinary methods, particularly in dealing with defiant 2- to 6-year-olds. He shared concerns about spanking that is too severe or too frequent.

Gershoff cautioned that her findings do not imply that all children who are spanked turn out to be aggressive or delinquent. But she contended that corporal punishment, on its own, does not teach children right from wrong and may not deter them from misbehaving when their parents are absent.
.

"Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists cannot responsibly recommend its use," Gershoff wrote.

"Parents should rely more on the other techniques that do teach children why their behaviors are wrong, what the consequence of the behaviors are and what they should do instead," she added.

Much of what was written is representative of ideas I doubt most parents would argue against. Spanking is only useful when employed as a reinforcement tool and is best used on children within a certain age range. Where has that been said before, hmmm???

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #215 on: December 07, 2011, 09:13:31 PM »
TOT, notice this from the article:

Quote
but advise parents with abusive tendencies to avoid spanking altogether

I'm sorry, but you do seem to have abusive tendencies if you were belting kids and saying you would "knock the thought" out of your child's head, as you mentioned earlier in this thread. I agree with Gnu that you were probably abused, and that is being passed on to your children.

I do not spank because the problem is this: everyone defines "mild to moderate spanking" (mentioned in the article) differently. The judge who hit his daughter thought he was just disciplining her. People get carried away and it is the RISK OF HARM to the child that I want prevented.

Besides, the article says that spanking does not lead to LONG-TERM compliance. So if you want to raise a decent, law-abiding citizen, you should use other disciplinary methods.

The point that there is a link between spanking and 10 negative behaviors in children still stands.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #216 on: December 07, 2011, 09:30:37 PM »
Here's another expert opinion.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#Differing_views_about_parental_spanking
Quote
Clinical and developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind has studied the effects of different parenting styles and has expressed the opinion that mild spanking with the empty, open hand, in the context of an authoritative (not authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status. She observes that previous studies demonstrating a correlation between corporal punishment and bad outcomes failed to control for these variables. She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.

And now the opinions of those that express dissent with CP.......

Quote
Opponents also argue that a problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments. This has been claimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has asserted: "The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse". Additionally, the Academy noted that: "Parents who spank their children are more likely to use other unacceptable forms of corporal punishment."

The American Academy of Pediatrics also believes that corporal punishment polarizes the parent-child relationship, reducing the amount of spontaneous cooperation on the part of the child. The AAP policy statement says "...reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use". Thus, so it is alleged, it has an addiction-like effect: the more one spanks, the more one feels a need to spank, possibly escalating until the situation is out of control.

The highlighted points are good ones worth much consideration and contemplation.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #217 on: December 07, 2011, 10:36:06 PM »
Oh my, and suddenly he's an expert, citing this and that.  :o

Why don't you take a couple of weeks and properly explore the evidence, TruthOT?

Of course you can find a few people such as Larzelere and Baumrind to support you, but look at the weight of the evidence.



And I notice that Baumrind makes this anti-science statement, which you highlighted:
Quote
She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs. 
   
So, if she thinks neither pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies are truly scientific, what exactly is she bringing to the argument? 

« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 10:43:57 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12235
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #218 on: December 08, 2011, 12:05:40 AM »
She may well be correct.  But if she is going to make a statement that completely disparages her own field of supposed expertise, then one should expect her to back it up solidly...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #219 on: December 08, 2011, 10:04:32 AM »
My father used to spank us as children using the Proverbs "rod of correction" excuse (proverbs 29-15)...until I convinced him that the rod was used by shepherds for keeping the sheep in tow. I was wrong in my interpretation, but apparently a  better apologist than dad).

I used:
Psalm 23:4 'your rod AND your staff, they comfort me'."
"Certainly King David was not a masochist or god a sadist!"
Of course I was wrong here too.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #220 on: December 08, 2011, 11:51:44 AM »
Quote
As a disciplinary tool spanking is most useful in effecting immediate behavioral change and compliance. Though immediate behavioral change and instant compliance may sound desirable to most parents, I'd advise parents to think twice before initiating CP making sure that they do not employ it as the "main dish", but instead consider other methods first before resorting to CP. If CP is to be applied, I'd caution parents to make sure that they give the recipient an explanation of why they are receiving the punishment as well as what should be done in order to avoid it in the future. (This is a technique parents would do well to employ before administering any form of punishment). Based on the studies that have been conducted, experts have found no data that indicates that spanking has any measurable lasting effects on positive behavior in and of itself. When spanking is used in conjunction with other disciplinary methods and children are given explanations as it pertains to behavioral expectations, there is reason to believe that spanking is a useful tool to not only bring about immediate compliance, but also serves to make the lessons and expectations verbalized by parents resonate more in the child. 

Though spanking in loving and teachable settings can have positive effects, employing spanking too frequently or too intensely, or doing so out of anger and frustration without first collecting one’s self can do far more harm than good. Spanking out of frustration or because a child embarrassed you in public is an act of petty vengeance and not something a loving parent should allow themselves to do.

Finally, parents should be ever mindful of the reasons why they are considering a punishment for their children. In most instances the purpose of punishments are to bring about behavior modifications as well as to teach life lessons. If you are a parent that consistently feels they are spanking their child for the same reason, then chances are very high that spanking is totally unproductive and only serves to bring about pain to the child as well as the parent. In conclusion, I would ask that parents would remember the end goal, being ever mindful of it especially in settings where disciplinary action may be appropriate knowing that every child is an individual and that the same technique that affects change in one child may not be as effective in the learning process of others.


Has Gnu pointed out earlier, I should keep reading before I reach a conclusion, and I will. The above quote seemed to do a good job of summarizing what many of the "experts" on both sides of the discussion that I have read so far say on the subject so I've chosen to share it.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:35:03 PM by Truth OT »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #221 on: December 08, 2011, 12:15:15 PM »
^^^
Quote
The above quote seemed to do a good job of summarizing what many of the "experts" on both sides of the discussion that I have read so far say on the subject
No it doesn't; it summarizes the pro-spanking side only.

And what's the source of the quote, by the way?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:32:15 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #222 on: December 08, 2011, 01:34:24 PM »
Hi JayB,

Here's another expert opinion.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#Differing_views_about_parental_spanking
Quote
Clinical and developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind has studied the effects of different parenting styles and has expressed the opinion that mild spanking with the empty, open hand, in the context of an authoritative (not authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status. She observes that previous studies demonstrating a correlation between corporal punishment and bad outcomes failed to control for these variables. She has also cautioned that neither the pro-spanking nor anti-spanking studies is truly scientific, in the sense that physics or chemistry experiments are scientific, as they cannot be modeled or reproduced by other researchers, there are too many disparate factors that might influence the results, and the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.

And now the opinions of those that express dissent with CP.......

Quote
Opponents also argue that a problem with the use of corporal punishment is that, if punishments are to maintain their efficacy, the amount of force required may have to be increased over successive punishments. This has been claimed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has asserted: "The only way to maintain the initial effect of spanking is to systematically increase the intensity with which it is delivered, which can quickly escalate into abuse". Additionally, the Academy noted that: "Parents who spank their children are more likely to use other unacceptable forms of corporal punishment."

The American Academy of Pediatrics also believes that corporal punishment polarizes the parent-child relationship, reducing the amount of spontaneous cooperation on the part of the child. The AAP policy statement says "...reliance on spanking as a discipline approach makes other discipline strategies less effective to use". Thus, so it is alleged, it has an addiction-like effect: the more one spanks, the more one feels a need to spank, possibly escalating until the situation is out of control.

The highlighted points are good ones worth much consideration and contemplation.
JayB, I see you +1'd TruthOT for this post and made this comment: Because you have highlighted what I have been struggling with.

I'm not sure what TruthOT has highlighted there. Perhaps you could explain?

And looking at what Wiki said, I'd say that it actually supports our side (my bold):
Quote
Clinical and developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind has studied the effects of different parenting styles and has expressed the opinion that mild spanking with the empty, open hand, in the context of an authoritative (not authoritarian) parenting style, is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect, if one is careful to control for other variables such as socioeconomic status.
1. We need more than an opinion.
2. As I said before, defining 'mild' is problematic: It's simply not possible to legislate how hard one could hit a child. What is the unit of measurement concerning the force of each blow? How does one measure the pain experienced? How does one distinguish between the pain caused by a blunt instrument such as a shoe and a sharp instrument such as a whip? And how many blows are permitted?
3. "Unlikely" - but therefore possible, right? So the question is, how unlikely? One in a million? One in a hundred? One in ten? And what is an acceptable level of risk? We take the position that since the deliberate infliction of physical pain is unnecessary, it's not necessary to take any risk of causing a "significant detrimental effect".

I'd also point out that the two Baumrind papers which Wiki references were written in '66 and '67, nearly half a century ago.

As for Robert Larzelere (from CG's article):
Quote
Robert Larzelere, a psychology professor at the Nebraska Medical Center, was one of the three experts critiquing Gershoff's findings. He noted that while she found links between spanking and negative behaviors, she did not assert categorically that spanking caused those behaviors.
We already addressed this point in the thread; the correlations should be investigated further.

Quote
Larzelere, in an interview, said he remains convinced that mild, non-abusive spanking can be an effective reinforcement of nonphysical disciplinary methods, particularly in dealing with defiant 2- to 6-year-olds. He shared concerns about spanking that is too severe or too frequent.
Again the problems of definition arise; how can the law or a parent define the line between severe and too severe? How can a parent know for sure that they haven't gone over the line in their treatment of their own child?

Larzelere's name seems to come up a lot in this debate. I noticed, JayB, that he had a hand in the lawyer's review you previously cited. On the first page it says:
Quote
J.D. Candidate 2009, The University of Akron School of Law; Symposium Editor, Akron Law Review; B.A. 2004, The Ohio State University, Phi Beta Kappa. For his indispensable research and comments, I thank Dr. Robert E. Larzelere.
One wonders why the lawyer didn't seek out comments from an expert on the other side of the debate. That does rather suggest some bias on his part, don't you think? As Baumrind claims: the studies are often heavily biased toward producing a result that affirms the researcher's personal beliefs.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 01:41:32 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #223 on: December 08, 2011, 02:44:35 PM »
So I'm reading yet another take written by someone in the field of psychology on CP here:
 http://www.wabi.tv/news/11290/spanking-what-are-the-potential-effects
and I find myself wondering whether these experts think everyone else is stupid and misses some very basic stuff!

This parargraph really make me wonder whether the writer even considered the fact that parents who spank actually use other disciplinary methods quite frequently and don't always swat on sight.

Quote
What to Do Instead of Spanking? Psychologists and other health professionals have developed many techniques to help children learn more appropriate and desirable behaviors without using corporal punishment. Strategies such as using time out, rewarding positive behavior, and teaching non-aggressive ways of coping with anger and frustration have benefitted many parents and children. Many parenting books, as well as the web sites of the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, offer guidance on these approaches.


- So I should consider various disciplinary options
- I should reward positive behavior
- I should teach patience and how to resolve situations in a civil manner

Does dude not realize that most parents, do all this? Or does dude view parents that spank as caveman-like subhumans that cannot behave in a manner any more complex than hitting first and asking questions later.
I find this article's final paragraph's tone to be condescending, haughty, assumptive, and self serving. As if parents have not been employing these "special" techniques recently developed by the health professionals who are of course much more intelligent and qualified than the average parent could ever hope of being.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #224 on: December 08, 2011, 04:26:36 PM »
Quote
What to Do Instead of Spanking? Psychologists and other health professionals have developed many techniques to help children learn more appropriate and desirable behaviors without using corporal punishment. Strategies such as using time out, rewarding positive behavior, and teaching non-aggressive ways of coping with anger and frustration have benefitted many parents and children. Many parenting books, as well as the web sites of the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, offer guidance on these approaches.


- So I should consider various disciplinary options
- I should reward positive behavior
- I should teach patience and how to resolve situations in a civil manner

Does dude not realize that most parents, do all this? Or does dude view parents that spank as caveman-like subhumans that cannot behave in a manner any more complex than hitting first and asking questions later.

Actually, there are many parents that need to hear disciplinary options. You can't just assume that people will have the common sense to parent their children correctly (after all, many adhere to the "spare the rod, spoil the child" philosophy). Parenting is a learned skill for many; it is not instinctive for everyone. I don't think you need to assume that the author views those who spank as "caveman-like subhumans." They are just saying that there are better methods than spanking.


I find this article's final paragraph's tone to be condescending, haughty, assumptive, and self serving. As if parents have not been employing these "special" techniques recently developed by the health professionals who are of course much more intelligent and qualified than the average parent could ever hope of being.

I think you are acting way too indignant, and even defensive, TOT. I would not describe the tone of the paragraph as any of those things. Funny how two people can interpret the same thing so differently. I really think that paragraph was to help people learn alternatives to spanking. Not to talk down to people.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 04:28:08 PM by curiousgirl »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #225 on: December 08, 2011, 04:44:06 PM »
Here is the problem, TOT. Most of us only know the parenting techniques we grew up with. We experience one set of parents, and maybe observe a few other families in our communities as we grow up. We cannot possibly be universal "experts" in parenting from our own personal experiences. I am barely an expert in raising my own kid!

We can't do longitudinal studies on different sets of kids, trying out ten different parenting strategies with control groups, and see whether one is better than another before we use it on our own children. We only get one chance to raise our kids (most of us will only have one family to raise in our lives).

It is like performing one or two trials of an experiment versus performing a hundred trials tweaking different variables. When we raise our own kids, we are performing one trial. A study of hundreds of families is kind of like raising the same set of kids a hundred times, under different conditions.

Which situation will yield more useful information, the two trials or the hundred? So, the people who have done studies looking at lots of parents and lots of kids, and using control groups to examine different factors have something valuable to offer. Even if they have not personally raised any kids!

Incidentally, hitting kids is not "natural" child-raising behavior done in every society until pointy-headed liberals took over. I lived with third world people in remote rural villages who did not hit their kids to discipline them. Illiterate, impoverished parents with little exposure to "parenting experts" who were raising their kids with kindness, respect and dignity rather than fear and pain.

It is the choice of the parents, not the behavior of the child, that determines whether kids are hit or not. So parents can choose not to hit.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #226 on: December 08, 2011, 04:59:24 PM »
TOT, you are a parental Dunning Kruger.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but in a very literal way.  You seem to have a very narrow view of how to parent.  It inhibits your ability to properly process or even understand what other people have to say about the topic.

I grew up in a rural area and my family was not rich.  I knew very little about what fine dining was, but I did not know that.  I thought I did know, though, and if you'd asked me at my highschool graduation, I would have told you Red Lobster was the pinnacle of great seafood.[1] I had a case of food Dunning Kruger.

When I went to college, I finally was exposed to a broader world.  It was an uncomfortable but brief period where I suffered through the realization that my views on cuisine, style, women and many other things were embarrassingly parochial.  I was mad at my family for being so unsophisticated and making me think otherwise.  I was also embarrassed for them and myself that I held those opinions at all.  I got past that.  And I am glad that I was I was open minded enough to realize my limitations and grow from there.   

TOT, you have shown that you can be open minded enough to learn some things since you have come here.  I hope you can be open to the idea that your ideas on parenting may be so parochial that they are inhibiting your ability to even conceive of other approaches.

 1. reminds me of the Bachelor episode when the Firestone guy took this hot, but unsophisticated chicky to dinner.  She mentioned that Olive Garden was her favorite restaurant.  He said he didn't like it.  She asked "oh, don't you like Italian food?"  He replied, "yes. I just don't like Olive Garden."  HA!  Olive Garden defined Italian cuisine for her.  Just like Red Lobster had at one time defined seafood for me.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #227 on: December 08, 2011, 05:04:18 PM »
^^^^Off topic, but yes, I remember that uncomfortable time in college when I started realizing how small my world had been. Growing up in segregated poor neighborhoods, I too thought that Red Lobster was fine dining. I mean, they had cloth napkins, and served lobster! If you sat down at a table, left a tip and did not take it out and eat it in the car, it was pretty fancy....
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 05:05:49 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #228 on: December 08, 2011, 05:09:06 PM »
^^^ LOL. As a kid I thought that Red Lobster and Olive Garden were pretty fancy, too.  ;D
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #229 on: December 08, 2011, 05:47:49 PM »
Here is the problem, TOT. Most of us only know the parenting techniques we grew up with. We experience one set of parents, and maybe observe a few other families in our communities as we grow up. We cannot possibly be universal "experts" in parenting from our own personal experiences. I am barely an expert in raising my own kid!

Very true, we all have been subjective to a specific and particular vantage point that is predjudiced, (our own). As we get older, realize the world is bigger than our block, and experience more of what life has to offer we often grow and find better more efficient ways to accomplish things. I don't think we do a good service to our kids if we only parent based on how we were parented, (especially if our parents were not exposed to anything but their block and never managed to finish high school). What we should do is learn as much as we can (without becoming obsessive about the process) and take some things we know that have works and use those things together to accomplish whatever tasks we choose to undertake.

I'd bet money that you are very likely the expert as it relates to your own kid if you no other reason than the fact that your kid is your kid.  &)

We can't do longitudinal studies on different sets of kids, trying out ten different parenting strategies with control groups, and see whether one is better than another before we use it on our own children. We only get one chance to raise our kids (most of us will only have one family to raise in our lives).

It is like performing one or two trials of an experiment versus performing a hundred trials tweaking different variables. When we raise our own kids, we are performing one trial. A study of hundreds of families is kind of like raising the same set of kids a hundred times, under different conditions.

Which situation will yield more useful information, the two trials or the hundred? So, the people who have done studies looking at lots of parents and lots of kids, and using control groups to examine different factors have something valuable to offer. Even if they have not personally raised any kids!

Incidentally, hitting kids is not "natural" child-raising behavior done in every society until pointy-headed liberals took over. I lived with third world people in remote rural villages who did not hit their kids to discipline them. Illiterate, impoverished parents with little exposure to "parenting experts" who were raising their kids with kindness, respect and dignity rather than fear and pain.

It is the choice of the parents, not the behavior of the child, that determines whether kids are hit or not. So parents can choose not to hit.


Noboby said nuthin' bout pointy headed liberals NG. Why you had to go there?

Anyhow.........

Sounds a bit like a one size fits all solution gleaned from longitudinal studies is best. For certain kids, perhaps, but for others, perhaps not. Each child is different and is best served when their needs are taken into consideration specifically. Maybe these studies do provide some good ideas as very broad guidelines, but treating their findings as if they were tailored specifically for our respective kids is unfair to the study, ourselves, as well as our kids. 

That said, I would agree that parent can and at times should choose not to hit. A parent with 6 kids may in fact find that it is totally not necessary or productive to spank 2 or 3 of them while the other kids respond well to spanking. Again, no one size fits all solution.

----
A question I have been asking myself lately is why is it that I feel more comfortable with my son or my nephew being spanked than my daughter being spanked.

BTW, Red Lobster was the freakin' 5-star priviledged restuarant to most teenagers. I remember how my friends were just as if not more excited about going to Red Lobster as they were about going to prom the same night.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #230 on: December 08, 2011, 05:51:54 PM »
Quote
Does dude not realize that most parents, do all this? Or does dude view parents that spank as caveman-like subhumans that cannot behave in a manner any more complex than hitting first and asking questions later.
I find this article's final paragraph's tone to be condescending, haughty, assumptive, and self serving. As if parents have not been employing these "special" techniques recently developed by the health professionals who are of course much more intelligent and qualified than the average parent could ever hope of being.
TruthOT, you are being driven by your prejudices; you ignore the gist of the man's article and merely respond on an emotional level to what you perceive to be criticism of yourself.

And your response is pure projection; the condescension, assumptions, haughtiness and self-servingness are all coming from you - as CG pointed out, there is none of that in the article.

Gnu.

PS The article referred to :
Quote
Recent Research on Negative Effects of Spanking: A soon to be published study conducted at Tulane University examined the impact of spanking 3-year old children, following them until they were 5 years old. Results showed that children who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to show aggressive behaviors by age 5. The study was unique in that it attempted to sort out the impact of spanking from other potential factors which could cause aggression, such as levels of aggression/violence between parents, neglect by parents, or stress/depression in the mother. 

The study was published, and can be found here.

More solid evidence in support of our position.

And it supports a statement by Dr Benjamin Spock in 1998:

Quote
"Spanking teaches children that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right. Some spanked children then feel quite justified in beating up on smaller ones.”

Thus as children TruthOT and his peers, raised in an environment in which spanking was pervasive, felt (and still feel, apparently) justified in abusing their younger relatives and torturing animals to death.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths
« Reply #231 on: December 08, 2011, 05:58:40 PM »
^^^I don't think we can jump all the way to there. We can't say that being hit made those kids torture animals or beat up younger kids. It may be linked but not causal. :-\
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.