Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[choleric]

When I make concessions and let other people get their way to maintain peace, I am not 'breaking' my will. I am laying it aside (if that!). I still have it.

You are saying that 'breaking' a child's will means making them realise that it can't control every situation. That is not what 'breaking' a child's will means.

Your comment and treemom's comment are perfect examples of what I am talking about. With regard to the phrase "breaking a childs will" you have one definition of what that means. You have no idea if you definition is the same definition that Mike Pearl has in mind, as I have explained it to you from my understanding of it. You all have created a straw man argument attacking their teaching of breaking a child's will as though it were sinister. You are simply overlaying whatever sinister definition you have over their words and attacking with a vengeance. It is simply misplaced anger. If I am wrong, please demonstrate from their writing how they define "breaking the will" differently than I have laid it out.

Secondly, at times simply getting your child to lay their will aside is sufficient. Other times it is not. If my child lays aside their will to physically hurt a sibling, yet remains angry, we have not accomplished as much as we would like in training them to love their sister and be kind even if you can't get your way.

[choleric]

Since I am slow, can you pleeeeease explain how hitting a child of any age with a willow branch isn't spanking? Do you view hitting a child with plumbing line as spanking? Like I said before intent or age doens't matter. Either it is or isn't spanking and since you believe it isn't, how is it different?

Didn't you already ask me this? I already answered it.

ETA: I don't know about the rest of his kids, but at least one of them is living with a guy she never legally married in poverty because they guy refuses to work and she won't leave them.

Who is "his kids?" Who is the one of them. Both sisters are legally married. I know the brother of one of the guys who married one of the Pearl girls. The other is also married and last name has been changed etc. Who are you referring to and do you have some evidence or a link to where you read it?

[FundiesInMyFamily]

And yet, Mike Pearl has 5 very well adjusted children, and many people who have known their family that value their opinion and input.

Well adjusted? One of his daughters is living in deplorable conditions with her children because her husband is too busy talking to god to get a job and take care of his family.

[Rosa]

And yet, Mike Pearl has 5 very well adjusted children, and many people who have known their family that value their opinion and input.

We actually follow one of his children on the web and she appears to be anything but well-adjusted. I would believe her will is broken, given the way she presents herself and her husband, but "well-adjusted", no.

[Rosa]

Jinx, everyone! Sorry.

okay, choleric, I'll bite. Here's what Merriam-Webster has that applies:

6.a : to defeat utterly and end as an effective force : destroy b : to crush the spirit of c : to make tractable or submissive: as (1) past participle often broke : to train (an animal) to adjust to the service or convenience of humans

Pearl CLAIMS he's using option C, there, but he DESCRIBES A and B as the means to C. And C is bad enough - adjust to service or convenience. Beating a child until they cannot make a sound is defeat and destruction in the service of the parent's service and convenience.

What you're talking about - a mature person who has a care for those around her and can make reasonable and empathetic decisions and practice ethics, has absolutely nothing to do with any of those definitions.

[Witsec1]

Flat lie. I am calling you on this one. Please show a quote where he said anything about not seeking help outside of himself. While I wait for you to never produce such a fact, allow me to show you a quote exactly opposite of your statement:

written by Michael Pearl – IN DEFENSE OF BIBLICAL CHASTISEMENT?

When is it abuse?

You are abusing the child when it starts doing harm to the child. Listen to your friends—especially to those friends that share your philosophy. Ask the opinion of people you respect. If they think you are abusive, get counsel in a hurry. Ask the opinion of your older children. If your child is broken in spirit, cowed and subdued, you have a problem. Children should be happy and cheerful, full of enthusiasm and creativity. If your children are fearful or anxious, you should get some counsel.

“Don’t be so indiscreet as to spank your children in public—including the church restroom. I get letters regularly telling of trouble with in-laws who threaten to report them to the authorities. Parents have called the Gestapo on their married children. Church friends who have noses longer than the pews on which they perch can cause a world of trouble. If you cannot get them trained before going out in public, stay home and read our four books again.â€

I also highlighted the problematic bit in what you quoted. Hana Williams mom talked about the difficulties she was having with "like-minded" friends - friends who shared her belief in chatisement a la Pearl - and they did nothing to stop the abuse even though they knew the child was being mistreated.

I can't help but note the hypocrisy in this statement. Surely you see it. You state that you mother has this great aptitude at child training because, well, she has some well adjusted kids that you have "systematically observed" and you use the opinion of others who value your mothers input and opinions.

And yet, Mike Pearl has 5 very well adjusted children, and many people who have known their family that value their opinion and input.

Yet, you only place value on your opinion and your mothers friends, while dismissing theirs simply because you say so. If children can be placed into evidence and the opinions of friends can be placed into evidence, it is either admissible for both, or neither.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

If you believe the Pearls don't advocate abuse or "beatings" because you can quote "Mike" saying it, I have a bridge to sell you. You're having a jolly time throwing out the insults, but it really is you who needs to learn some critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. You are defending a hick farmer who instructs people how to systematically torture their children based on what his demented mind perceives from a book with no more factual basis than Alice in Wonderland. You are not going to change a single person's mind here, Choleric. You are a garden variety troll who is not making "Mike" come off any better.

Oh, and how dare we spend time calling out people who abuse children and oppress women?! Some of us surely have masters of the home whose feet need a rubbing...

[choleric]

Well adjusted? One of his daughters is living in deplorable conditions with her children because her husband is too busy talking to god to get a job and take care of his family.

Really? Which one? How do you define deplorable and do they feel the same way about their conditions that you do? What do you mean "talking to God?" Do you mean preaching? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

[choleric]

We actually follow one of his children on the web and she appears to be anything but well-adjusted. I would believe her will is broken, given the way she presents herself and her husband, but "well-adjusted", no.

Which child is that? Why do you believe her will is broken? Is it because of her personality type or are you basing your insight on some other data? Or are you guessing from some pictures you see on the internet?

[FundiesInMyFamily]

Really? Which one? How do you define deplorable and do they feel the same way about their conditions that you do? What do you mean "talking to God?" Do you mean preaching? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

Go read "mike's" daughters' blog, asshole.

[Rosa]

Dude, lots of us read Rebakah and Gabe Anast's own writings, and they put out a lot to be read. Use the search bar up at the top of the page and see what we've quoted from their writings & had to say about it.

That's the thing about these people: we're not speculating. We're looking at a fairly extensive body of web- and paper-published work. THEIR OWN WORDS.

[choleric]

“Don’t be so indiscreet as to spank your children in public—including the church restroom. I get letters regularly telling of trouble with in-laws who threaten to report them to the authorities. Parents have called the Gestapo on their married children. Church friends who have noses longer than the pews on which they perch can cause a world of trouble. If you cannot get them trained before going out in public, stay home and read our four books again.â€

I also highlighted the problematic bit in what you quoted. Hana Williams mom talked about the difficulties she was having with "like-minded" friends - friends who shared her belief in chatisement a la Pearl - and they did nothing to stop the abuse even though they knew the child was being mistreated.

I'll take that as an admission you were in error. He has never said "don't read any other materials." Thanks for that

I can't help but note the hypocrisy in this statement. Surely you see it. You state that you mother has this great aptitude at child training because, well, she has some well adjusted kids that you have "systematically observed" and you use the opinion of others who value your mothers input and opinions.

And yet, Mike Pearl has 5 very well adjusted children, and many people who have known their family that value their opinion and input.

Yet, you only place value on your opinion and your mothers friends, while dismissing theirs simply because you say so. If children can be placed into evidence and the opinions of friends can be placed into evidence, it is either admissible for both, or neither.

[Patsy]

Your comment and treemom's comment are perfect examples of what I am talking about. With regard to the phrase "breaking a childs will" you have one definition of what that means. You have no idea if you definition is the same definition that Mike Pearl has in mind, as I have explained it to you from my understanding of it. You all have created a straw man argument attacking their teaching of breaking a child's will as though it were sinister. You are simply overlaying whatever sinister definition you have over their words and attacking with a vengeance. It is simply misplaced anger. If I am wrong, please demonstrate from their writing how they define "breaking the will" differently than I have laid it out.

Secondly, at times simply getting your child to lay their will aside is sufficient. Other times it is not. If my child lays aside their will to physically hurt a sibling, yet remains angry, we have not accomplished as much as we would like in training them to love their sister and be kind even if you can't get your way.

I apologise if you see this as cowardly, but I do need to bow out of this discussion once I've responded to this. I find this thread very emotionally exhausting to read, and I know I will become sick and physically tired if I allow myself to get further involved. I really can't afford that at the moment. I hope you understand that from my perspective, I am reading about methods of torture, and someone defending them.

In response to what you've said: no, I am not aware that he ever defines 'breaking the will' as torturing a child into spiritual death. That is, however, what he describes in his descriptions of 'chastisement', which frankly sound similar to rape narratives. Things like

"Defeat him totally.",

"A proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain.",

"I would continue slowly, still counting, stop again and tell him that I know it hurts and I wish I didn’t have to do it but that it is for his own good. Then I would continue slowly. Pretending to forget the count, I would again stop at about eight and ask him the number. Have him subtract eight from ten, (a little homeschooling) and continue with the final two licks. Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will.",

"Slowly pursue him, explaining that he cannot win. If it takes a long time, that’s fine. Go to his hiding place and laugh at his frail attempts."

If a child cries out from being physically beaten - "Don’t be bullied. Give him more of the same. On the bare legs or bottom, switch him eight or ten licks; then, while waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If the crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If the crying is still defiant, protesting and other than a response to pain, spank him again."

[Rosa]

p.s. this is a minor point but, Choleric, you claimed the Pearl girls are legally married. I haven't looked up the public records, but your pal Mike claims they are not, because he disagrees with the concept of state marriage licenses:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/ge ... e-wedding/

"None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state of Tennessee for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever—until death. So when the sodomites have come to share in the state marriage licenses, which will eventually be the law, James and Shoshanna will not be in league with those perverts. And, while I am on the subject, there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together with perverts. "

Stop accusing us of not reading the man's words. You don't read them even when we repost them for you.

[choleric]

Go read "mike's" daughters' blog, asshole.

So is that code for "I have no idea, I am only a parrot so I will be mean and curse as a distraction from my ignorance"?

[choleric]

p.s. this is a minor point but, Choleric, you claimed the Pearl girls are legally married. I haven't looked up the public records, but your pal Mike claims they are not, because he disagrees with the concept of state marriage licenses:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/ge ... e-wedding/

"None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state of Tennessee for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever—until death. So when the sodomites have come to share in the state marriage licenses, which will eventually be the law, James and Shoshanna will not be in league with those perverts. And, while I am on the subject, there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together with perverts. "

Not going through the state (perfectly legal to do) is not the same as "shacked up".

Stop accusing us of not reading the man's words. You don't read them even when we repost them for you.

:?:

[Brainsample]

Confirmation bias is confirmation bias. I, for one, may choose to bang my head against a wall now and then, but I don't exactly like fruitless discussion. A person who engages in debate has some degree of respect for others, and they want to arrive at an amicable sharing of ideas if not some compromise. None of that's happening here with Choleric. I've been snarled at with enough snide insults that demonstrate a total lack of respect that I am finished.

If anyone has any more new information pertaining to CNN or Anderson Cooper, I hope that they start a new thread so that I will see it. Otherwise, I've just about had it.

Is it time for nail polish yet?

[Rosa]

Is English not your first language? Not legally married = shacked up. In this world.

I mean, people can say they are spiritually married, or had a private handfasting, or had their umbrella of authority transferred, but married has a legal definition in this country. "Shacked up" is just slang for "living together and having sex but not married".

(We assume they are having sex because they have children, but feel free to dispute that - it's possible Rebekah Anast is actually reproducing parthenogenically. None of us KNOW them like you do.)

[FundiesInMyFamily]

7x Sunday is their Forum, and is filled with their beliefs and their life and lifestyle, in their own words.

I am not usually so inarticulate, but I find myself without words when thinking of the Pearls and their ilk, and anyone who would stand up for them and defend their practices, or the practices of a son in law who has his wife and children living in poverty because he's too busy subjucating women and beating children to work. "Asshole" was the nicest word I could think of at the moment.

[treemom]

Your comment and treemom's comment are perfect examples of what I am talking about. With regard to the phrase "breaking a childs will" you have one definition of what that means. You have no idea if you definition is the same definition that Mike Pearl has in mind, as I have explained it to you from my understanding of it. You all have created a straw man argument attacking their teaching of breaking a child's will as though it were sinister. You are simply overlaying whatever sinister definition you have over their words and attacking with a vengeance. It is simply misplaced anger. If I am wrong, please demonstrate from their writing how they define "breaking the will" differently than I have laid it out.

Secondly, at times simply getting your child to lay their will aside is sufficient. Other times it is not. If my child lays aside their will to physically hurt a sibling, yet remains angry, we have not accomplished as much as we would like in training them to love their sister and be kind even if you can't get your way.

My definition I the colloquial one. The narrow defintition you are using is not what most American would think of. And breaking is permanent. Even if something is repaired, the break is still there. The fracture remains. Eventually, enough times it has been broken and it never returns again.

[treemom]

Oh, and if my kid wants to be angry, that is fine with me. Emotions, even anger are normal. Jesus got angry...should he have been switched?

[FundiesInMyFamily]

I love that Blue Color, Brainsample.

I think bowing out is a good idea for me as well... I can't formulate an inteligent sentence regarding any of this, and pointing and shouting "asshole" is pretty juvenile, although I'd love to get this guy in a room and shout a lot more at him.

I'm gunna go hug my kid now, who is beautiful, smart, creative, happy, and funloving, despite never having ever been spanked. He has a very strong will and asserts it often and I like him that way - it makes him strong and independent.

[emmiedahl]

So is that code for "I have no idea, I am only a parrot so I will be mean and curse as a distraction from my ignorance"?

No, it is code for GO READ HIS CHILDREN'S BLOGS; THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MALADJUSTED. We actually read the Anast's blog around here. The other children have not one legal marriage or job between them. That's right; they are unemployed itinerants who are living in sin with "spouses" to whom there is no actual marriage. The people on this board, however, have children who are engineers and other actual occupations, people who have traditional marriages and are contributing to society.

By "talks to God all day" we do not mean a preacher. Gabe Anast is not a preacher; he has no flock or church, he hears voices in his head and thinks that they are from God. His wife supports him in NOT supporting their children because she has been trained with beatings since she was 4 months old.

[Rosa]

All respect for those who bow out. Step away for your own mental health (and blood pressure!) if you need to.

Me, I'm all in as long as I have time. At this point I'm on the fence between "troll" and "secretly one of the Pearls" and I'm hoping eventually choleric will break down and tell us who the hell he is. I don't mind the trolling, if that's what it is, because the more times we quote and/or mention Mr. "Babybeater" Michael Pearl the higher FJ comes up on the Google rankings for anyone interested in Mr. "Peace be on poor Lydia Schatz" "Mike" Michael Pearl.

Because I have run into casual Pearl defenders before, of the "well he never says beat" and "just ignore the bad parts and use the good parts" and "I was spanked and it was fine" types, but this is just ludicrous.

[Austin]

It is called a life. Something I live with real people rather than waste all of my time on forums talking to people who hate God and people who spank.

And yet here you are. :roll:

My favorite new OPI color is "Mimosas for Mr. & Mrs." Too bad sandal weather is over and no gets to see it anymore - lol.