Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[FlorenceHamilton]

chas·tise (chs-tz, chstz)

tr.v. chas·tised, chas·tis·ing, chas·tis·es

1. To punish, as by beating. See Synonyms at punish.

2. To criticize severely; rebuke.

3. Archaic To purify.

As long as we are clarifying definitions, I thought this might help.

[Brainsample]

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,

I am beyond sickened at the way you've misinterpreted and misrepresented what I've written here today, and I am very offended. I could absolutely puke at the way you've made it sound as though I am somehow in favor of this because I hate this stuff. Maybe you should visit my blog and listen to the radio show I did on Pearl and read the 20 blog posts I've written on this subject, and how it demonstrates the very worst of humanity.

Part of the problem with the book is that it is sugar coated and avoids accountability by being vague. That is worse than saying that you should "switch" your kid for 2 hours straight. "Don't leave marks" sounds like a burglar who doesn't want to leave foot and fingerprints, so that no one really sees the harm in their crime. I'm the person that has suggested that untold numbers of kids who were disciplined with the plumbing line could well have lasting renal disease as adults.

I don't care what Pearl says when he's under scrutiny. I am utterly appalled at his blog post wherein he "laughs at critics." I think it is a travesty that he didn't get on a plane and fly to the Paddock family and the Schatz family and the Williams family, at the very least, to offer moral support and to express remorse in some show of accountability. If it were me, I would have insisted on paying for their legal support, and I would have pulled those books still on the market. Instead, he's showing his colors as the controlling, authoritarian SOB that he seems to me to be. He is proud and arrogant, and that's almost worse than the deadly garbage he's published. It has ruined relationships between friends of mine that are parents of kids who are now adults, and it is dangerous.

And I'm throwing this in here while I am on a roll. Michael Pearl professes to be a Christian, right? Why is it that he uses an evolutionary model? People are no different than animals. That is Darwinian, if anything is. He is a hypocrite.

[Lostie]

I think choleric may be gone. It's too bad to because I would have liked to see what he/she had to say about what we've been saying.

ETA: I guess I was wrong.

[choleric]

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?

No, spanking a child who does not understand is bit advocated. One example of training anninfantnwoukd be the breastfeeding example. Debi explains how one of her babies bit her while breastfeeding. In order to train her child not to bite, she could not spank as the child would not understand. Instead, she gently pulled the hair at the base of the head. Then, the child associates the biting while nursing with slight pain. This way the baby learne not to bite, bit because they were being chastised, but trained to not bite.

[choleric]

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?

No, spanking a child who does not understand is bit advocated. One example of training anninfantnwoukd be the breastfeeding example. Debi explains how one of her babies bit her while breastfeeding. In order to train her child not to bite, she could not spank as the child would not understand. Instead, she gently pulled the hair at the base of the head. Then, the child associates the biting while nursing with slight pain. This way the baby learne not to bite, bit because they were being chastised, but trained to not bite.

[thoughtful]

Choleric --

Defending Michael Pearl, eh? What a noble pursuit. :roll:

Here's what I never get -- why does anyone assume that the parents who killed their children got angry and/or lost control?

It seems to me one could follow Pearl's advice to calmly continue switching until the child fully submits, especially since he says to sit on a child, if need be, and have that end in death or severe injury.

As ever, I want people to be able to read the book, so they won't be accused of taking the violent stuff out of context:

http://www.achristianhome.org/to_train_up_a_child.htm

I think the rest of the book makes it all even more disgusting -- bond, be loving, teach that parents will show the way to Godliness and keep you out of hell, but assume that your children are sinful and controlling and coolly cause them pain, including in situations where they have been set up for failure and/or just to prove that parents must be in charge.

I would be disgusted by TTUAC if there was absolutely no news about children dying or being injured.

ETA for riffle.

[choleric]

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?

No, spanking a child who does not understand is bit advocated. One example of training anninfantnwoukd be the breastfeeding example. Debi explains how one of her babies bit her while breastfeeding. In order to train her child not to bite, she could not spank as the child would not understand. Instead, she gently pulled the hair at the base of the head. Then, the child associates the biting while nursing with slight pain. This way the baby learne not to bite, bit because they were being chastised, but trained to not bite.

[apple1]

Too confused to not post the same thing 3 times, choleric?

[Witsec7]

I didn't have the Pearls book when I was breast feeding my DD many years ago. When she bit, I unlatched her and put her back to nurse. Its not rocket science. No pain needs to be inflicted. I do wonder about folks who have an interest in inflicting pain as part of child discipline. Its rather lazy IMHO and not the least bit creative.

[Witsec1]

No, spanking a child who does not understand is bit advocated. One example of training anninfantnwoukd be the breastfeeding example. Debi explains how one of her babies bit her while breastfeeding. In order to train her child not to bite, she could not spank as the child would not understand. Instead, she gently pulled the hair at the base of the head. Then, the child associates the biting while nursing with slight pain. This way the baby learne not to bite, bit because they were being chastised, but trained to not bite.

This is so garbled I don't even know what it means. He absolutely does describe switching a 4 month old in TTUAC:

One of our girls who developed mobility early had a fascination with crawling up the stairs. 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.

[oscar]

Watch out, though, when trying to mitigate a choleric temperament by increasing phlegm - yellow bile may be corrupted by various types of morbid phlegm and give rise to any of several dyscrasias. One of the more common is vitelline bile. Its home is in the liver, gall bladder and middle digestive tract, and it is thickened and dark yellow, like egg yolk. Vitelline bile is an amalgamation of bile with thicker, denser forms of phlegm, and its nature is stagnating and obstructive.

[Witsec1]

Watch out, though, when trying to mitigate a choleric temperament by increasing phlegm - yellow bile may be corrupted by various types of morbid phlegm and give rise to any of several dyscrasias. One of the more common is vitelline bile. Its home is in the liver, gall bladder and middle digestive tract, and it is thickened and dark yellow, like egg yolk. Vitelline bile is an amalgamation of bile with thicker, denser forms of phlegm, and its nature is stagnating and obstructive.

:lol:

[Austin]

Is it my imagination, or did our choleric troll sort of. . . decompensate there at the end a bit? Got to be a little like word salad-y. . .

[emmiedahl]

I wonder if he was using an iphone for the last comment. He was not signed in below when he left the last one.

[JesusFightClub]

I don't have children, Choleric. But I do have an abiding interest in torture. Not in an S/M way. That sort of thing is not appealing to me.

What I mean is that the goal of torture is always ideological and never practical. It never works, in practice, like 24 where the baddie confesses all truthfully. It serves two purposes. One, the torturers enjoy it. Two, it breaks the spirit.

A small child who is hit until she admits wrongdoing, smiles and thanks the people who hit her is in exactly the same position as an adult who is beaten until she admits wrongdoing, confesses and agrees with her tormentors. Poor Lydia and Hana could not do that (some people can't) and died. Torturers know that happens sometimes.

But the idea of torture is not "confess" or "feel sorry" or "don't do that again" but "break". It is an ideological weapon, as the Pearls basically admit. If your goal is to break your child's will by attacking them physically or mentally, duh, torture.

[atheistjd]

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.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of involuntary/criminally negligent manslaughter. If one acts in a criminal or reckless manner and that act results in death, you may be criminally liable for manslaughter. Whether or not your intent was to cause death.

"Mike" Pearl may not advocate for the end result, but he advocates for the (certainly) reckless and (almost certainly) criminal treatment of children. That treatment has, in at least 2 (? I am not as familiar with the Pearl's as some of our other posters) cases, resulted in death. So I don't care if he advocated for "what happened" to those poor children, he advocated for the parents' actions, with absolutely no caveats (to echo others, that would not make him any better, but is a fact) regarding how long the torture should continue (in fact, I would argue that he EXPLICITLY argues to do it continuously - to the point of death - given some of the direct quotes attributable to him posted above), what age the torture may begin (again, I would argue he advocates starting at birth, given that he advocates infliction of pain upon an infant and a 4-year-old), etc.

I would also like to emphasize how the threat of eternal damnation affects these parents - to say that if you do not beat your child until they "break," they will go to hell, is in my personal opinion akin to emotional and spiritual blackmail to force these parents to torture their children (as the child of a very well-meaning but very terrified of hell one-time "spanking-to-break" practitioner, I feel angry at the evil teachers of such methods much more that at my parents themselves - although responsibility ultimately lies with parents, I personally hold those like the Pearls equally, or nearly equally, responsible).

[Brainsample]

[Lainey]

So, choleric, you think it's totally okay to hit an under-12-month-old with a ruler? :shock: Don't come back and say that Pearl never advocates that, because it's in one of the quotes that emmiedahl posted. Exactly that.

[formergothardite]

No, spanking a child who does not understand is bit advocated. One example of training anninfantnwoukd be the breastfeeding example. Debi explains how one of her babies bit her while breastfeeding. In order to train her child not to bite, she could not spank as the child would not understand. Instead, she gently pulled the hair at the base of the head. Then, the child associates the biting while nursing with slight pain. This way the baby learne not to bite, bit because they were being chastised, but trained to not bite.

A quote that you seemed to miss where Debbi advocates and does spank a child who doesn't understand.

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.

By their own admittance they hit a child with a willow spring who they knew was incapable of understanding why she was getting hit with a willow spring.

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

Granted she does not technically say she karate chopped the baby, she does spank hard enough to make her wheeze from deep in side her, which is a sign of knocking the breath out of a baby. Notice they say she was going to return the blow, which means that she was getting hit at that time; this wasn't a case of her suddenly beginning to wheeze out of the blue.

[teddybear]

YgsMM_rKrmY

I don't know if this has been posted or not. When are these people going to be stopped?

[Kitty]

It's been posted quite a bit.

I saw this and was all "OH NO. NOT ANOTHER." Hana is #3, and I thought there was a #4.

[emmiedahl]

I thought that at first too. I'm glad it is not #4. I haven't seen the parents or Hana before (I have been avoiding it, I don't any faces on the pictures in my head) so this makes me angrier. She looks so lovely and sweet, I don't understand how they could have treated her this way.

[Witsec7]

There is an abuse case in Vancover WA, Jeffrey and Sandra Weller, the techniques are Pearlish but as of yet no connect to them or religious linkage. Adopted children.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/oct/ ... ase-court/

[Angri-la]

There is an abuse case in Vancover WA, Jeffrey and Sandra Weller, the techniques are Pearlish but as of yet no connect to them or religious linkage. Adopted children.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/oct/ ... ase-court/

I am going to be driving up there for this court case. I don't know that I can do much, but I want to be there to see these people get what is coming to them on earth. Those poor kids; I wish I had another bedroom...

[Austin]

Teddy, I've merged your topic here, where we're discussing poor Hana and the Pearls, etc.