Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[choleric]

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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:

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:

Hana died of hypothermia because her parents used this tip:

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.

Your claiim was that the writing was "way different" than the interview. How is anything that you just posted "way different" from the interveiw? They advocate training, not punishment or beating. You seem to have a difficult time discrening between beating, torture, and spanking. A common theme of the posters here it seems.

[Witsec1]

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.

I have worked with refugees and asylum seekers who have been tortured. Repeated striking with a rubber hose until the will is broken is torture. Read the quote that I posted again. Pearl gives no upper limit to the number of blows that can be given. The child's complete and total submission is the only thing that will stop the blows. The child's attempts to deflect or escape from the blows are interpreted as defiance. Obviously, there is a point at which this can cause excruciating pain, permanent damage, and death. Lydia Schatz died of tissue breakdown as the result of being repeatedly struck with plumbing supply line, administered methodically and interspersed with prayer. That is torture.

[choleric]

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".

If "I" want to play semantics? That is pretty hilarious seeing that it is you people who are substituting words to play to your bias. Maybe you should look up the word "semantics" or "bias". Is english your first language?

[Witsec1]

Please address the fact that Pearl gives no upper limit on the number of times a parent may strike a child with a flexible rubber hose, an implement often used in torture of prisoners of conscience.

[Brainsample]

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

He'd never call it beating. But he does make a point of saying that "you shouldn't leave marks." Well, you can not leave marks or leave minimal ones compared to the amount of muscle tissue damage that can occur. That is in the book and Pearl said the same thing in the interview. Make sure that you don't leave marks. He's not worried about the tissue damage that occurs from the use of that plumbing line, he seems to be more concerned about whether you left marks on your kid.

The problem is that my girlfriend pointed out when she called me, concerned that she might kill her daughter, is that the descriptions are so subjective. You are supposed to continue the "chastisement" until that child breaks and stops rebelling. You cannot do that with everyone, and the limits on what you should do and when you should stop are subjective. The measurements of what constitutes breaking are subjective. Pearl is clear that you don't ever sound defeat, and you have to dominate that "diabolical will" of the child. If you stop before their will "breaks," that kid has won and you've forever lost. The Schatzes believed that Lydia had not been broken yet, and they "Biblically chastised" her until her kidneys failed.

Michael Pearl's brain might kick in with his kids, and he might say, "I'd better stop now, because this is a little too much." But he doesn't reflect that in the book, only "Don't stop until you've met the objective." He doesn't tell parents to use good sense, and if they think that child might be overwhelmed or really suffering too much, that they should stop. It's conquer now or suffer later, and the consequences are essentially sending your kid to hell. Many parents think, because of Pearl says, "If I stop now, I may have missed a critical learning point here, and when the kid is 15, he'll do something awful, and when he's grown, he'll depart from the faith. I'd better keep my kid from the flames of hell and just do what needs to be done now. It's for the greater good."

So we don't know, but apparently, Pearl knows when to stop. Because of the subjective nature of what he's written and the way he's written it (using emotional blackmail in the process -- keep your kid out of hell), not everyone who reads his book knows when to stop. That's a problem with his book, not the people who read it.

It apparently does not work as a desirable technique when working from adoptees out of African orphanages, a population suffering with issues of trauma and the developmental effects of it. We know that from these two dead children. (I don't even need to go to the body of knowledge that has been written concerning reactive attachment problems and traumatized children.)

Pearl can spout all he wants about how the discipline should take place within the confines of a loving relationship of trust, and he may well have that with his kids. The problem is that not everyone who reads the book has that with their kids, and that deficiency may be the sole cause of the discipline issues. It's too inclusive and too subjective.

ETA: Just so people understand that I think that Pearl's book is a menace, as later comments seem to suggest that I am somewhat supportive of Pearl and that I think that a population of "nut jobs" is abusing Pearl. It will come up in later comments, but I want it in this one for clarity!!!

choleric wrote:

Just because some nut job owned the book while killing their child does not mean the book or its' teachings is to blame.

MY RESPONSE:

You know, you've just resorted to several propaganda techniques to unfairly objectify, demonize and scapegoat people, and you could very well do exactly the same things that they did.

Did you read a thing I wrote???? My BEST FRIEND called me in tears, concerned that she might kill her daughter, so distraught that I didn't know what to do at first. I couldn't believe it. This is not just a minority of people who have trouble with this book. It is kind, caring, compassionate people who don't know what to do and are already frustrated.

Let me make it clear that I have no problem with corporal punishment if a child is very young and is ignorantly doing something that is threatening their life. If a 3 year old is gunning for a stove burner, better to slap their hand and whack their bottom than let them burn their hand and to teach them fear of the stove which is appropriate. Or when a command of voice fails to stop your child from bolting out into the street, or when he knocks his brother off his bike so that he falls into a busy street. But those are life-threatening things. Apart from that, the usefulness for corporal punishment is quite limited and usually has quite viable alternatives.

So please do not cast me as some voice of reason or that I am stating that I am in any way encouraging of any of these things. I think that they are dangerous, and I think that as Alice Miller has written in "For Your Own Good," this type of corporal punishment destroys critical thinking and promotes blind obedience to men and not God.

Someone needs to sue the pants off of Pearl in civil court for the miserable and unmeasurable harm he has done. These people with the publicized bad outcomes are nothing compared to the emotional, psychological and physical morbidity I believe Pearl has caused through his ideology. It just never makes the press.

[choleric]

I have worked with refugees and asylum seekers who have been tortured. Repeated striking with a rubber hose until the will is broken is torture. Read the quote that I posted again. Pearl gives no upper limit to the number of blows that can be given. The child's complete and total submission is the only thing that will stop the blows. The child's attempts to deflect or escape from the blows are interpreted as defiance. Obviously, there is a point at which this can cause excruciating pain, permanent damage, and death. Lydia Schatz died of tissue breakdown as the result of being repeatedly struck with plumbing supply line, administered methodically and interspersed with prayer. That is torture.

I agree that the example you provide is indeed torture. If a person is experiencing "tissue breakdown" then they are not applying the teaching correctly and are likely mentally deranged. Using an extreme example to make a point is intellectually dishonest.

If you wanted to be less biased in your opinion you could say something less inflammatory such as "while the Pearls book does not advocate cruelty or torture, someone who is mentally unstable or has anger issues could misinterpret the teachings of the Pearls in such a way as to cause harm to their children".

To claim that Mike Pearl advocated what happened to that little girl is foolish and destroys your credibility.

[Witsec1]

If "I" want to play semantics? That is pretty hilarious seeing that it is you people who are substituting words to play to your bias. Maybe you should look up the word "semantics" or "bias". Is english your first language?

I am deliberately using the phrase "strike with a flexible tube" in place of "beat". It does not alter the argument one iota. Please address my question.

[emmiedahl]

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.

You don't think that karate chopping a toddler or hitting a 12 pound 4 month old baby with plumbing line is not "the act of inflicting excruciating pain"? My babies get irritated from tags and seams in their clothing; I can only imagine what plumbing line or a switch would do to their skin.

The problem is no one misinterpreted. They used the instructions as given. Keep hitting until the child obeys. For at least two children, this required beating them to death.

[Witsec1]

I agree that the example you provide is indeed torture. If a person is experiencing "tissue breakdown" then they are not applying the teaching correctly and are likely mentally deranged. Using an extreme example to make a point is intellectually dishonest.

If you wanted to be less biased in your opinion you could say something less inflammatory such as "while the Pearls book does not advocate cruelty or torture, someone who is mentally unstable or has anger issues could misinterpret the teachings of the Pearls in such a way as to cause harm to their children".

To claim that Mike Pearl advocated what happened to that little girl is foolish and destroys your credibility.

There is no evidence that the Schatzes had anger issues or that they were especially cruel or sociopathic. They were applying the teaching that the parent must continue to strike the child with rubber tubing until the child's is "completely surrendered." Why does Michael Pearl refuse to specify how many times a child may be struck with a rubber hose?

[choleric]

He'd never call it beating. But he does make a point of saying that "you shouldn't leave marks." Well, you can not leave marks or leave minimal ones compared to the amount of muscle tissue damage that can occur. That is in the book and Pearl said the same thing in the interview. Make sure that you don't leave marks. He's not worried about the tissue damage that occurs from the use of that plumbing line, he seems to be more concerned about whether you left marks on your kid.

The problem is that my girlfriend pointed out when she called me, concerned that she might kill her daughter, is that the descriptions are so subjective. You are supposed to continue the "chastisement" until that child breaks and stops rebelling. You cannot do that with everyone, and the limits on what you should do and when you should stop are subjective. The measurements of what constitutes breaking are subjective. Pearl is clear that you don't ever sound defeat, and you have to dominate that "diabolical will" of the child. If you stop before their will "breaks," that kid has won and you've forever lost. The Schatzes believed that Lydia had not been broken yet, and they "Biblically chastised" her until her kidneys failed.

Michael Pearl's brain might kick in with his kids, and he might say, "I'd better stop now, because this is a little too much." But he doesn't reflect that in the book, only "Don't stop until you've met the objective." He doesn't tell parents to use good sense, and if they think that child might be overwhelmed or really suffering too much, that they should stop. It's conquer now or suffer later, and the consequences are essentially sending your kid to hell. Many parents think, because of Pearl says, "If I stop now, I may have missed a critical learning point here, and when the kid is 15, he'll do something awful, and when he's grown, he'll depart from the faith. I'd better keep my kid from the flames of hell and just do what needs to be done now. It's for the greater good."

So we don't know, but apparently, Pearl knows when to stop. Because of the subjective nature of what he's written and the way he's written it (using emotional blackmail in the process -- keep your kid out of hell), not everyone who reads his book knows when to stop. That's a problem with his book, not the people who read it.

It apparently does not work as a desirable technique when working from adoptees out of African orphanages, a population suffering with issues of trauma and the developmental effects of it. We know that from these two dead children. (I don't even need to go to the body of knowledge that has been written concerning reactive attachment problems and traumatized children.)

Pearl can spout all he wants about how the discipline should take place within the confines of a loving relationship of trust, and he may well have that with his kids. The problem is that not everyone who reads the book has that with their kids, and that deficiency may be the sole cause of the discipline issues. It's too inclusive and too subjective.

Finally an example of a well balanced post on the topic. I agree with you that not every parent has the self control or common sense to know what spanking is. Many parents can't spank without being angry. That sends the wrong message and does not accomplish anything. But I notice that your post finds issue with the person reading the book, not the book itself. That is because the book does not advocate anything that would be misconstrued as beating or torture. It is a very well balanced, common sense teaching on training that has been practiced for thousands of years.

Just because some nut job owned the book while killing their child does not mean the book or its' teachings is to blame.

[Brainsample]

Please address the fact that Pearl gives no upper limit on the number of times a parent may strike a child with a flexible rubber hose, an implement often used in torture of prisoners of conscience.

FloraPoste,

This is exactly what I was getting at when I say that the book is too subjective.

There is no time limit on how long you "switch" your kid until they break. Maybe he should say that you shouldn't do it for more than 30 minutes, though people have put kids into renal failure that fast with aggressive beatings. Maybe he should tell you, as a check on your own anger, that if you think the kid needs more, after ten minutes, you should stop for an hour and re-evaluate. Set a timer? Check the condition of the skin, the temperature, how red the skin gets and how quickly the blood flows back into the skin after you blanch it by applying pressure with your finger tip after you remove the pressure. Something. Anything. Like, maybe you shouldn't give more than 40 lashes, something somewhat Biblical, because Jesus only had 39 stripes because 40 stripes was a death sentence. You could say that you should only do it 39 times and then stop. There are all kinds of limits Pearl could give. But he doesn't.

ETA: Just to make it perfectly clear that I do not think that establishing some objective measures in his writings would make this book better or would rectify the harm that it does. I wanted to point out examples that Pearl might have included -- considerations that might have saved a child's life. It seems that "choleric" interpreted my comment as some kind of agreement with the premise. And I am disgusted and offended that they have misinterpreted and misrepresented what I've written and why.

[choleric]

You don't think that karate chopping a toddler or hitting a 12 pound 4 month old baby with plumbing line is not "the act of inflicting excruciating pain"? My babies get irritated from tags and seams in their clothing; I can only imagine what plumbing line or a switch would do to their skin.

The problem is no one misinterpreted. They used the instructions as given. Keep hitting until the child obeys. For at least two children, this required beating them to death.

Mike Pearl does not advocate karate chopping a toddler or hitting a 4 month old with plumbing line. Both of those examples are lies and intended to help make your point while not being based on facts. Mike Pearl says the hand should never be used as it does not accomplish the intended effect which is acute stinging pain to gain attention.

Any parent that beats their child to death is insane. Blaming anyone other than the murderer is likewise insane.

[oscar]

choleric, did you ever READ the book you're defending?

[choleric]

FloraPoste,

This is exactly what I was getting at when I say that the book is too subjective.

There is no time limit on how long you "switch" your kid until they break. Maybe he should say that you shouldn't do it for more than 30 minutes, though people have put kids into renal failure that fast with aggressive beatings. Maybe he should tell you, as a check on your own anger, that if you think the kid needs more, after ten minutes, you should stop for an hour and re-evaluate. Set a timer? Check the condition of the skin, the temperature, how red the skin gets and how quickly the blood flows back into the skin after you blanch it by applying pressure with your finger tip after you remove the pressure. Something. Anything. Like, maybe you shouldn't give more than 40 lashes, something somewhat Biblical, because Jesus only had 39 stripes because 40 stripes was a death sentence. You could say that you should only do it 39 times and then stop. There are all kinds of limits Pearl could give. But he doesn't.

Thank you for the non inflammatory nature of your post. Maybe he should put a limit. Likewise (and forgive the sarcasm here) maybe he should include some common sense with the purchase of every book. And renal failure would only occur due to jarring or violent force. This is often caused by using the hand where the entire body is impacted. That is why proper spanking is done with something that only causes stinging and does not jar the body. A small switch or ruler does not cause the entire body to move with the spanking. That is a very specific element to the teaching. Mike has said that if you are leaving a mark, you are doing it wrong. He has also said that if you are angry, you should not spank.

[choleric]

choleric, did you ever READ the book you're defending?

yes I have. As well as "no greater joy volumes 1,2 &3".

[Witsec1]

I am blaming Michael Pearl for saying "it's impossible to say how many licks is too many." Since the death of Lydia Schatz, he should have been aware how that advice can lead to death. He has had over a year to correct his website, and he has not done so. He is a moral failure and is not in a position to advise anyone on parenting. If he is setting himself up as an authority and teacher of parents, his job should be to lead parents lacking in common sense to better awareness, and not blame them for following his advice as written.

[emmiedahl]

Mike Pearl does not advocate karate chopping a toddler or hitting a 4 month old with plumbing line. Both of those examples are lies and intended to help make your point while not being based on facts.

Please read my previous post, in which I quoted where he advocated both.

[Brainsample]

Just because some nut job owned the book while killing their child does not mean the book or its' teachings is to blame.

You know, you've just resorted to several propaganda techniques to unfairly objectify, demonize and scapegoat people, and you could very well do exactly the same things that they did.

Did you read a thing I wrote???? My BEST FRIEND called me in tears, concerned that she might kill her daughter, so distraught that I didn't know what to do at first. I couldn't believe it. This is not just a minority of people who have trouble with this book. It is kind, caring, compassionate people who don't know what to do and are already frustrated.

Let me make it clear that I have no problem with corporal punishment if a child is very young and is ignorantly doing something that is threatening their life. If a 3 year old is gunning for a stove burner, better to slap their hand and whack their bottom than let them burn their hand and to teach them fear of the stove which is appropriate. Or when a command of voice fails to stop your child from bolting out into the street, or when he knocks his brother off his bike so that he falls into a busy street. But those are life-threatening things. Apart from that, the usefulness for corporal punishment is quite limited and usually has quite viable alternatives.

So please do not cast me as some voice of reason or that I am stating that I am in any way encouraging of any of these things. I think that they are dangerous, and I think that as Alice Miller has written in "For Your Own Good," this type of corporal punishment destroys critical thinking and promotes blind obedience to men and not God.

Someone needs to sue the pants off of Pearl in civil court for the miserable and unmeasurable harm he has done. These people with the publicized bad outcomes are nothing compared to the emotional, psychological and physical morbidity I believe Pearl has caused through his ideology. It just never makes the press.

[Lostie]

Thank you for the non inflammatory nature of your post. Maybe he should put a limit. Likewise (and forgive the sarcasm here) maybe he should include some common sense with the purchase of every book. And renal failure would only occur due to jarring or violent force. This is often caused by using the hand where the entire body is impacted. That is why proper spanking is done with something that only causes stinging and does not jar the body. A small switch or ruler does not cause the entire body to move with the spanking. That is a very specific element to the teaching. Mike has said that if you are leaving a mark, you are doing it wrong. He has also said that if you are angry, you should not spank.

Okay, I'm seriously trying to understand yours/Michael Pearl's opinion here. So do let me know if I'm getting it wrong here.

He advocates spanking (with a switch, paddle, plumbing line - basically anything but the hand) a child (at what seems to be any age) until they stop doing whatever is considered the inappropriate behavior and stop making a fuss about being spanked. I assume he advocates telling them what he's going to do first so that the child knows that they will be spanked until they stop fighting it? He also, from what I understand, suggests this method , even with children too young to understand what is going on and why they're being hit.

Is that right?

[Witsec7]

yes I have. As well as "no greater joy volumes 1,2 &3".

Do you use these techniques on your own children? What ages are your children? At what age did you begin training? What types of items do you use to administer physical discipline? Do you use only your hands?

[Austin]

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

If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War, c.500 BCE

I'd say this POS qualifies.

[emmiedahl]

I LOVE how he totally ignored quotes from the book in which KARATE CHOPPING A TODDLER and HITTING A BABY WITH A SWITCH are specifically given as examples of HOW TO PARENT A CHILD and says that the Pearls don't advocate that.

To be clear, THOSE are the quotes that I would like to see in print below Pearl's face while he is saying he does not advocate those things.

[Witsec1]

Yes, the passage about Debi Pearl hitting a toddler with all her strength is particularly disturbing. Anyone who thinks that it's necessary for an adult to hit a small child with all her strength as a means of discipline is not a good parent.

[apple1]

And renal failure would only occur due to jarring or violent force.

Absolutely false. I am a healthcare professional (clinical laboratory scientist) and Brainsample is an RN. There are other RNs on here. There are MDs on here.

Renal failure from rhabdomyolysis (injured muscle tissue) was first identified medically in victims of the London blitz. It is seen in earthquake survivors, torture victims, and child abuse victims. The muscle damage in and of itself results in the kidneys shutting down (renal failure).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279914/

"ARF after rhabdomyolysis is multifactorial; injured muscle may sequester many litres of fluid, reducing the effective intravascular volume and activating both the sympathetic and the renin-angiotensin systems, with consequent renal vasoconstriction and ischaemia. Muscle cell damage releases vasoactive mediators into the circulation, further reducing renal blood flow. Myoglobin precipitates in the tubule, leading to tubular obstruction. Precipitation is enhanced in acidic conditions; however, myoglobin initiates tubular injury in concentrations lower than are needed to cause precipitation. Tubular injury seems to be mediated by free radicals, which cause lipid peroxidation within the nephron. Free iron was initially implicated as the cause of this free radical generation; however, the haem group of myoglobin is now thought to cause lipid peroxidation directly."

[oscar]

If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War, c.500 BCE

I'd say this POS qualifies.

If Choller do exceed, as may sometime,

Your eares will ring, and make you to be wakefull,

Your tongue will seeme all rough, and oftentimes

Cause vomits, unaccustomed and hatefull,

Great thirst, your excrements are full of slime,

The stomacke squeamish, sustenance ungratefull,

Your appetite will seeme in nought delighting,

Your heart still greeued with continuall byting,

The pulse beate hard and swift, all hot, extreame,

Your spittle soure, of fire-worke oft you dreame.

Regimen Sanitatis Salernitanum, attributed to John of Milano, 11c.

To increase phlegm and offset yellow bile, try cold baths.