Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[lilwriter85]

I'm applaud AC for putting the Pearls in the mainstream. Many people aren't aware of TTUPAC. I also applaud 20/20 for mentioning the Pearls on their feature about IFB churches.

[Patsy]

Michael Pearl is worse than an animal on many levels, but he and asswipe bride keep saying that they don't advocate parents "losing control". Here's the thing: I don't think these parents lost control, in either Lydia's case or Hana's. I think this abuse was systematic and intentional and part of their whole extremely warped parenting "style".

People do get angry and whack their kids, and may even hurt them, but that isn't a situation where it was intentional or systematic. TTUAC teaches parents to be systematic, intentional abusers, and "losing control" has nothing at all to do with it.

YES. You don't NEED to lose control to kill your children using those methods. If you sit on your child and torture him to the point of breaking, refusing to stop until he is dead inside, you don't NEED to lose control to kill him. Torturing a child for a day can kill them, and that is what the books advocate - ritualised, controlled torture, that 'if necessary' goes on for hours.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Jericho,

I thought Michael Pearl was pretty smooth too. However, I watched the show with my own parents who are actually pretty toxic in their own way. They are in their late 70's, so they were brought up in a time when spanking was not even controversial. They very old fashioned in their views about child rearing. They saw right through Michael Pearls lies.

[choleric]

I wish they would run quotes from Michael Pearl below his face when he talks. Because what he writes and what he is claiming to write are two very different things.

Really? Care to share a few of these things that he writes that are different from the interview? Or should we just assume that you know what you are talking about? I would bet you haven't read two words of anything the man has ever written.

I await the quotes.....should I hold my breath?

[apple1]

Really? Care to share a few of these things that he writes that are different from the interview? Or should we just assume that you know what you are talking about? I would bet you haven't read two words of anything the man has ever written.

I await the quotes.....should I hold my breath?

Post #1 from our latest troll?

(And wow, did you ever mess up with this one).

[Brainsample]

Did anyone see that they posted a part of the interview online last night? http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/27/v ... hpt=ac_bn2

[choleric]

I wish they would run quotes from Michael Pearl below his face when he talks. Because what he writes and what he is claiming to write are two very different things.

Really? Care to share a few of these things that he writes that are different from the interview? Or should we just assume that you know what you are talking about? I would bet you haven't read two words of anything the man has ever written.

I await the quotes.....should I hold my breath?

Post #1 from our latest troll?

So just because I only have one post I am a troll? does it not bother you that someone is making accusations with no facts? Or is blind opinion welcomed on this forum?

(And wow, did you ever mess up with this one).

[Brainsample]

Really? Care to share a few of these things that he writes that are different from the interview? Or should we just assume that you know what you are talking about? I would bet you haven't read two words of anything the man has ever written.

I await the quotes.....should I hold my breath?

I've read his book twice. Before I knew who he was by name (though I'd heard about his methods and tuned much out because I hadn't managed to have the children I'd hoped for), I took a phone call from by best friend, in tears, because she was in fear that she was going to kill her daughter!

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2011 ... eople.html

[apple1]

Really? How so? I would love to see the quotes. Funny thing is, I know they don't exist. I will continue to wait for facts while you resort to ridicule, the favorite tool of the uninformed ignorant masses who base their argument on frothing anger rather than fact.

You quoted/directed your first post to emmiedahl. She will not roll over and play dead. You'll see :roll:

[choleric]

I've read his book twice. Before I knew who he was by name (though I'd heard about his methods and tuned much out because I hadn't managed to have the children I'd hoped for), I took a phone call from by best friend, in tears, because she was in fear that she was going to kill her daughter!

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2011 ... eople.html

Not sure the relevance. How in the world can what you just posted have anything to do with the facts. Mike Pearl does not advocate anger. And if you have in fact read the book twice you would know that. If you are afraid you are going to beat your child to death, then you are clearly not following the advice of the book. The book clearly teaches that you should calmly talk to your child about what they have done wrong, then calmly spank.

If you are angry, you shouldn't do anything as you are an out of control parent and you should seek help. None of which has anything to do with the teaching of Mike Pearl. To say that your friend has Mike Pearl to blame is ludicrous. Mike teaches child training to normal parents, not those who can't control their own anger to the point where they fear killing their children.

[choleric]

You quoted/directed your first post to emmiedahl. She will not roll over and play dead. You'll see :roll:

I hope while not playing dead she can play informed and bring some actual facts to the table. We will be waiting a long time.

[deelaem]

Really? Care to share a few of these things that he writes that are different from the interview? Or should we just assume that you know what you are talking about? I would bet you haven't read two words of anything the man has ever written.

I await the quotes.....should I hold my breath?

*clapping my hands* Yay! A new troll to play with!

How do you justify his statement that he beats a 15 year old with a belt to teach him not to be violent?

[apple1]

Not sure the relevance. How in the world can what you just posted have anything to do with the facts. Mike Pearl does not advocate anger. And if you have in fact read the book twice you would know that. If you are afraid you are going to beat your child to death, then you are clearly not following the advice of the book. The book clearly teaches that you should calmly talk to your child about what they have done wrong, then calmly spank.

If you are angry, you shouldn't do anything as you are an out of control parent and you should seek help. None of which has anything to do with the teaching of Mike Pearl. To say that your friend has Mike Pearl to blame is ludicrous. Mike teaches child training to normal parents, not those who can't control their own anger to the point where they fear killing their children.

Calm and systematic torture of children is worse that occasional outbursts of anger.

You came to the wrong place to spew your garbage. I would be interested to figure out who you are IRL.

I suspect that this thread is about to explode.

[choleric]

*clapping my hands* Yay! A new troll to play with!

How do you justify his statement that he beats a 15 year old with a belt to teach him not to be violent?

Please provide the quote where Mr Pearl ever said he beat anyone. I will be waiting......forever.

[Lostie]

*clapping my hands* Yay! A new troll to play with!

How do you justify his statement that he beats a 15 year old with a belt to teach him not to be violent?

I'd be interested in your answer to deelaem as well. I am fortunate to have grown up with a mom who only spanked me once. I can't even imagine growing up with someone who used the Pearls' methods.

ETA: I haven't seen the AC interview, but I've found a transcript of it and it's even more terrifying than I thought. Especially this part:

M. PEARL: He would get — a 7-year-old would get 10 or 15 licks, and it would be a formal thing. In other words, you maintain your patient air. You explain to him that what he’s done is violent and that that’s not acceptable in society, and it’s not acceptable at home. And then I would take him somewhere, like into his bedroom, and I would tell him I’m going to give him 15 licks.

TUCHMAN: With what?

M. PEARL: Probably a belt on a kid that big, a boy. I’d probably use a belt.

That poor 7 year old. I'm especially glad he's not my parent now!

[choleric]

Calm and systematic torture of children is worse that occasional outbursts of anger.

You came to the wrong place to spew your garbage. I would be interested to figure out who you are IRL.

I suspect that this thread is about to explode.

Please provide the quote where torture was ever advocated in any of the Pearls writings. I will be waiting. Let's deal with facts, not frothing bias based on ignorance.

[deelaem]

Please provide the quote where Mr Pearl ever said he beat anyone. I will be waiting......forever.

Oh, are we playing the semantics game? How cute of you! I guess you don't see several smacks with a belt as a beating. Wow, we're just no match for your vast intelligence!

[Witsec1]

How many licks?

There is no number that can be given. It would be better to administer more licks that are less forceful than to administer few licks that hurt severely. It is much more effective to administer chastisement or punishment in a slow thoughtful fashion. Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go. After about three licks, leaving him in his position, I would stop and remind him what this is all about. 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. Only about three of our five children ever resisted after a spanking and refused to cooperate. Each of the three required only one experience of continued spankings until they surrendered. None of the three ever tried it a second time. In all cases, it was between the ages of two and four that they tried their moment of defiance.

If you ever have a child who stands his ground of defiance and you let him win, you have lost his heart forever—unless you are able to go back and win a confrontation and keep on winning. If you ever let his rebellion triumph just one time, it makes it much harder to conquer in the future. After he gains the upper hand, one victory on your part will not be sufficient. You will have to persevere in several contests of wills until he is convinced that he can never stand against your authority.

Michael Pearl has no experience parenting adopted children and knows nothing about how this advice can play out when there is no attachment bond between parent and child. It is pathetically easy to break the will of a child with normal attachment. Applying this advice to children who have not yet formed an attachment to the parent has led to these tragic cases. Not only does it damage the child, it damages the parent's ability to bond with the child, causing the parent to equate any failure to comply as willful disobedience that must never be tolerated and must always lead to a confrontation in which the child must be totally defeated.

[Witsec1]

Please provide the quote where torture was ever advocated in any of the Pearls writings. I will be waiting. Let's deal with facts, not frothing bias based on ignorance.

I just did in the quote above. Pearl recommends the use of flexible plumbing supply line. This is the favorite tool of secret policemen everywhere. Striking someone repeatedly until their will is totally and completely broken is torture.

[choleric]

Oh, are we playing the semantics game? How cute of you! I guess you don't see several smacks with a belt as a beating. Wow, we're just no match for your vast intelligence!

If it is only semantics why do you insist on using language other than that used by the person and writings at hand? Are you attempting to sway opinion by using inflammatory language in lieu of fact? Let's deal with facts. If you need help with simple language or comprehension, consult a dictionary, or a 1st grader.

[choleric]

torture

[tawr-cher]   Origin

tor·ture

   [tawr-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.

noun

1.

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2.

a method of inflicting such pain.

3.

Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4.

extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5.

a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Now that we have some facts on the table, please refrain from calling spanking torture. Thank you in advance to the intellectually honest.

[Lostie]

If it is only semantics why do you insist on using language other than that used by the person and writings at hand? Are you attempting to sway opinion by using inflammatory language in lieu of fact? Let's deal with facts. If you need help with simple language or comprehension, consult a dictionary, or a 1st grader.

I want to know how you don't see hitting a 7 year old 10-15 times with a belt as a beating (for this reference see my copy of the AC transcript). You ground them, you make them stay in their room all night - you should not be hitting/spanking/giving licks to (choose your terminology as you will) a child with a belt.

[Witsec1]

If you want to play semantics, you lose. Our criticism of Michael Pearl is NOT altered by substituting the phrase "strike with a flexible hose" in place of "beat" or "beating".

[apple1]

Oh, are we playing the semantics game? How cute of you! I guess you don't see several smacks with a belt as a beating. Wow, we're just no match for your vast intelligence!

Right.

Pulling a BFing infant's hair is training.

And withholding food is merely fasting.

And hosing a child off outdoors, with cold water from a hose, in cold weather is not torture. Who needs baby wipes anyway?

And systematically "spanking" or "chastising" with plumbing supply line is not torture.

This is just like Michael Pearl on AC. Redefine all the words. Gah.

[emmiedahl]

Dear Troll: Read this and then hobble back under your bridge.

Here are a few quotes from the book that I consider damning.

At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of “No†with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a twelve-inch long, one-eighth-inch diameter sprig from a willow tree.

He acknowledges that she was unknowing, but hit her with a switch anyway. Here Pearl discusses how to deal with a small infant who is having trouble going to sleep:

Get tough. Be firm with him. Never put him down and then allow him to get up. If, after putting him down, you remember he just woke up, do not reward his complaining by allowing him to get up.For the sake of consistency in training, you must follow through. He may not be able to sleep, but he can be trained to lie there quietly. He will very quickly come to know that any time he is laid down there is no alternative but to stay put. To get up is to be on the firing line and get switched back down.

Here he recommends beating a 7 month old baby for crying:

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down damnation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby’s face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, “What can I do?†My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, “Switch him.†The mother responded, “I can’t, he’s too little.†With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, “If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked.â€

Here, Debi Pearl talks about whipping a baby that she was babysitting 10 consecutive times:

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do–he humbled himself before the “highest†and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores.

Here, Debi Pearl brags about knocking the wind out of a baby she is babysitting:

This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside.

Here Pearl advocates hitting a baby who cries for its mother:

If a father is attempting to make a child eat his oats, and the child cries for his mother, then the mother should respond by spanking him for whining for her and for not eating his oats. He will then be glad to be dealing only with the father.

Pearl advocates continuing to beat children until they are broken, which has led to the deaths of three children who just could not be broken without beating them to death:

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him.

They are talking about a toddler above.

Here there advocate using weapons. Why do I call them weapons? Because they are the implements with which two children have been killed while using Pearl's parenting tips:

Select your instrument according to the child’s size. For the under one year old, a little, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective.

Hana died of hypothermia because her parents used this tip:

So, my suggestion was that the father explain to the boy that, now that he was a man, he would no longer be washed in the house. He was too big and too stinky to be cleaned by the babywipes. From now on, he would be washed outside with a garden hose.

Pearl claimed on one show that he never advocates using a rod on a child less than 12 months old. Really? Because he advocated using it on a child that is 4 months old in one of my examples, and on a child who is 7 months old in another.