Anderson Cooper Rocks/Pearls=Another Death (MERGED)

[anniebgood]

My goodness I didn't realize all the different permutations of bile.

As far as TTUAC, my SIL was a devoted fan when she raised her kids, they turned out not too well. That get your own switch thing backfired. Thank the FSM she saw the light and used common sense.

[Witsec1]

You don't have the intellectual honesty to actually grasp the argument that I made earlier.

Pearl refuses to give an upper limit to the number of times a child can be hit with a flexible rubber hose. A flexible rubber hose can lead to tissue breakdown under the skin, leading to kidney damage, another poster detailed the process above. The renal failure that caused Lydia Schatz' death was not due to blunt trauma, but gradual tissue breakdown. If a parent accepts the premises Pearl puts forward in the passage I quoted, they have no option but to continue the repeated striking sessions, alternating with breaks for the child to exhibit the proper degree of compliance (which is never objectively spelled out), In Lydia's case, her body was broken before her will. Her parents followed the advice I quoted to a T, and a child died. That is torture, and Pearl gives instructions in how to do it.

[atheistjd]

Let's demonstrate the absurd with the absurd shall we?

For all of those who refuse to spank, what do you use/advocate for discipline of a child? Do you send them to their room? What are you, some sort of terrorist? How dare you unlawfully imprison your child? You are going to scar your child with that hostage like situation? You are all sick. Haven't you heard of the parents that locked their children in their basement and the child died? All of that based on the ridiculous idea that sending your child to their room was a good punishment. You people advocate taking your own child hostage and you should be ashamed. Don't you see how it is no different than putting them in prison or taking them hostage? don't you see how some people can take it to the extreme and it lead to death?

that is how you all sound regarding spanking. You all look like ignoramouses that this example illustrates. The standards which you use to judge the pearls and their teaching could be applied just as easily and with the same logic to all sorts of discipline. Of course you will disagree, further demonstrating your intellectual honesty.

I think the best place to start is not to end any recommended parenting advice with "until their will is broken." Sending a child to their room, with express purpose of leaving them there UNTIL THEIR WILL IS BROKEN, is torture. While I happen to believe violent punishment is worse, you certainly can take any otherwise reasonable punishment (sending a child to bed without supper, standing in a corner, etc.) and make it abuse or torture.

Your friend "Mike" has the express aim of breaking the will of children. That is pretty much torture no matter how you accomplish it, but spanking them into submission (which is violent, is hitting, is beating, and all the other words you seem so intent on misunderstanding) is an especially egregious way of doing that. And also, criminal.

If there's one thing I really enjoyed about the interview with "Mike" it was that he called attention to how many people (I believe he said 230 million?) are breaking the law and abusing their children. While I'm sure his numbers were exaggerated, hopefully the viewers and AC himself now realize just how widespread these "nut jobs" are and how important it is to crack down on these child abusers.

[atheistjd]

You don't have the intellectual honesty to actually grasp the argument that I made earlier.

Pearl refuses to give an upper limit to the number of times a child can be hit with a flexible rubber hose. A flexible rubber hose can lead to tissue breakdown under the skin, leading to kidney damage, another poster detailed the process above. The renal failure that caused Lydia Schatz' death was not due to blunt trauma, but gradual tissue breakdown. If a parent accepts the premises Pearl puts forward in the passage I quoted, they have no option but to continue the repeated striking sessions, alternating with breaks for the child to exhibit the proper degree of compliance (which is never objectively spelled out), In Lydia's case, her body was broken before her will. Her parents followed the advice I quoted to a T, and a child died. That is torture, and Pearl gives instructions in how to do it.

Yeah - as usual you said it better than me :)

But this.

[Koala]

This idiot is here to defend two sick fucks that write "how to" manuals on child abuse. We are NOT going to be able to talk any sense into him/her.

If the ban/delete button was within my reach, it would have been pressed hours ago. As it is, my blood is absolutely boiling.

[Witsec1]

I think the best place to start is not to end any recommended parenting advice with "until their will is broken." Sending a child to their room, with express purpose of leaving them there UNTIL THEIR WILL IS BROKEN, is torture. While I happen to believe violent punishment is worse, you certainly can take any otherwise reasonable punishment (sending a child to bed without supper, standing in a corner, etc.) and make it abuse or torture.

Your friend "Mike" has the express aim of breaking the will of children. That is pretty much torture no matter how you accomplish it, but spanking them into submission (which is violent, is hitting, is beating, and all the other words you seem so intent on misunderstanding) is an especially egregious way of doing that. And also, criminal.

If there's one thing I really enjoyed about the interview with "Mike" it was that he called attention to how many people (I believe he said 230 million?) are breaking the law and abusing their children. While I'm sure his numbers were exaggerated, hopefully the viewers and AC himself now realize just how widespread these "nut jobs" are and how important it is to crack down on these child abusers.

Not to sound like a mutual admiration society, but that was very well put and a good response to the red herring.

[formergothardite]

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 inside 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.

Quoting this since choleric seems to have missed it.

[oscar]

My goodness I didn't realize all the different permutations of bile.

Oh, I'm happy to keep using humoral theory to internet-diagnose this doofus. Heh.

Did you know that it's possible to suffer from vitelline bile and citron yellow bile at the same time? In particular, extreme cold can separate phlegm into an insipid, watery component and a thick, concentrated residue. When each meets up with an excess of yellow bile, both dyscrasias can arise simultaneously.

A slow, dull irritant that is also stagnating and obstructive? Seems plausible.

[emmiedahl]

Let's demonstrate the absurd with the absurd shall we?

For all of those who refuse to spank, what do you use/advocate for discipline of a child? Do you send them to their room? What are you, some sort of terrorist? How dare you unlawfully imprison your child? You are going to scar your child with that hostage like situation? You are all sick. Haven't you heard of the parents that locked their children in their basement and the child died? All of that based on the ridiculous idea that sending your child to their room was a good punishment. You people advocate taking your own child hostage and you should be ashamed. Don't you see how it is no different than putting them in prison or taking them hostage? don't you see how some people can take it to the extreme and it lead to death?

that is how you all sound regarding spanking. You all look like ignoramouses that this example illustrates. The standards which you use to judge the pearls and their teaching could be applied just as easily and with the same logic to all sorts of discipline. Of course you will disagree, further demonstrating your intellectual honesty.

I guess we won the argument if you are going to ignore what we posted (you know, all those places in the book where Michael Peart advocates child abuse) and attack instead. :clap: Are all Pearl followers assholes? I guess you have to be such to read a book that tells you to hit a baby with a stick.

[atheistjd]

Not to sound like a mutual admiration society, but that was very well put and a good response to the red herring.

Awww, shucks :oops:

[emmiedahl]

Did he say 230 million? There are not even that many parents in the US, the only developed nation where this bs is even legal.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I guess we won the argument if you are going to ignore what we posted (you know, all those places in the book where Michael Peart advocates child abuse) and attack instead. :clap: Are all Pearl followers assholes? I guess you have to be such to read a book that tells you to hit a baby with a stick.

That's the best description I've ever read.

[atheistjd]

Did he say 230 million? There are not even that many parents in the US, the only developed nation where this bs is even legal.

I thought the number sounded ludicrous... I have a hunch he is counting all that are "blessed" by his teachings - don't forget all those letters he got from the abused, Stockholm-Sydrome-suffering grateful children :roll:

[oscar]

Okay, just one more. Heat from choler will transform mucilaginous phlegm into hot phlegm. Hot phlegm in the heart agitates and disturbs the vital spirits, leading to symptoms such as hyper-reactivity, incoherent speech, agitated violent behavior and mental confusion.

[FlorenceHamilton]

How many fjers condone the idea of breaking a child's will? Although we have an assortment of fundies, feministis, liberals, conservatives, crunchy hippies, yuppy egalitarians, and others, my bet is that not one of us would advocate the breaking of a child's spirit to get them to obey. Some of us may approve of spanking a child under certain conditions. None of us would condone spanking as a constant threat.

The reason why the Pearls are so offensive is that they are advocating this zombie like compliance, this non thinking, non self reflective automaton behavior from children.

Responsible parenting is not about training a child to blindly obey. It is about teaching a child to knowingly cooperate. It is not about making a child smile to avoid chastisement. It is about knowing that the smiles are genuine and full of hope and trust.

Children sometimes need to be corrected. Sometimes this correction may be a brief period of being alone, or taking away something of value. It may even be a quick swat on the hand for reaching toward a dangerous object, or whack on the butt for running in the street. The correction should be fully explained. Infants who are too young to understand should not be spanked at all. An infant who is too distressed to go to sleep is not "willful". S/he is uncomfortable, frightened, anxious, hungry or bored. You would not want to play with the infant at this time. Certainly, however, give reassurance and comfort. If you can't deal, then walk away and let the child cry it out, even. But to switch an infant for being fussy is cruel.

The point is NOT to break the child.

[Austin]

Methinks choleric is a Tim LaHaye fan. Which is not quite as bad as being a Pearl fan, but it is pretty slimy. Yeah.

In case anyone cares about to what I'm referring, here it is (if not, you can stop reading now :D ):

Tim LaHaye reworked personality research that had already been done by others far more able than he and packaged it like they were his own ideas and huckstered them to the evangelical community. These were called "The Four Spiritual Temperaments", and were a lovely way to box people in more than evangelicalisms already had. The four temperaments are choleric, melancholy, phlegmatic, and sanguine. He claimed to have based these temperaments on ancient greek crap, but it was really just a bunch of shit he stole from others and made the rest up. And made a ton of money, as his book became the basis for many expensive workshops that Christians were exhorted to attend, so he sold a shitload of books.

[Witsec7]

Good call Austin. Timmypoo may not be as vile as MP but he is a freekin' money machine, with a successful marketing plan. He birthed a xtian writing genre that fills miles of shelf space in thrift stores. He's a bit more successful than Mike since he's been able to sell his disguised ideology as pop culture reading for born agains and religious conspiracy nuts.

[oscar]

Why, you can go to his website and take a personality test to discover your spiritual temperament for the low, low price of $35!

[emmiedahl]

We had to take those tests in high school, along with the Myers-Briggs. I was a melancholy and an INFP, now I lean toward INFJ.

eta: why yes, I am derailing the thread, why do you ask?

[Buzzard]

I shall now replace the work "spank" with the word "hotdog".

Hotdogging a child with an implement until he wets himself is abuse. Hotdogging a child until they overcome their natural instinct to struggle against a painful stimulus is abuse. Hotdogging a child calmly and in a detached fashion while praying and ignoring their cries for you to stop is fucked the hell up.

Following the pearl's teachings on proper hotdog methods teach a parent to overcome their instinct to soothe and aid their child. Their teachings to hotdog children and "train" them alienates a child from a parent by instilling a relationship of fear rather than respect. Hotdogging a child with no realistic end can cause permanent damage to a child, and death.

It doesnt matter if I say "spank", "beat", "abuse", or "hotdog". What matters is the end result.

The best way to "train" a child is to educate them. To use your skills and calmly explain to them why their behavior is wrong and how they have disappointed you. Teach them how to reason and weigh their actions vs the likely end result. Resorting to painful stimuli is the lazy way to do it.

[Brainsample]

How many fjers condone the idea of breaking a child's will? Although we have an assortment of fundies, feministis, liberals, conservatives, crunchy hippies, yuppy egalitarians, and others, my bet is that not one of us would advocate the breaking of a child's spirit to get them to obey. Some of us may approve of spanking a child under certain conditions. None of us would condone spanking as a constant threat.

The reason why the Pearls are so offensive is that they are advocating this zombie like compliance, this non thinking, non self reflective automaton behavior from children.

Responsible parenting is not about training a child to blindly obey. It is about teaching a child to knowingly cooperate. It is not about making a child smile to avoid chastisement. It is about knowing that the smiles are genuine and full of hope and trust.

Children sometimes need to be corrected. Sometimes this correction may be a brief period of being alone, or taking away something of value. It may even be a quick swat on the hand for reaching toward a dangerous object, or whack on the butt for running in the street. The correction should be fully explained. Infants who are too young to understand should not be spanked at all. An infant who is too distressed to go to sleep is not "willful". S/he is uncomfortable, frightened, anxious, hungry or bored. You would not want to play with the infant at this time. Certainly, however, give reassurance and comfort. If you can't deal, then walk away and let the child cry it out, even. But to switch an infant for being fussy is cruel.

The point is NOT to break the child.

I am right up there with Alice Miller on this point. She was a psychologist (died recently) who was dedicated to outlawing all corporal punishment. I think that with young kids that are not verbal yet (like a 2 year old) and when circumstances are immediate and potentially dangerous (running in street, diving into the hot oven), it can be useful. Kids need to fear the stove. Miller would disagree with me.

But I agree with Miller that not only does this style of discipline set a child up for somatic illness (check the last couple of posts and info on Miller: http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com/), it also flattens out critical thinking. It creates the kind of person who will follow a totalitarian without thinking too much about it because they are already dissociative. Dr. Drew mentioned that in his interview with Pearl the other night. If you want to raise a nation of automatons who do whatever ANY authority tells them, then use Pearl's discipline. It can be deadly in the long run.

Even God does not force us to do things like this by forcefully breaking our will. He allows us the choice to either obey or do something else. God is not authoritarian and does give us a choice. They ask of children what God does not even ask of adults.

And don't get me started on Pearl's ideas about how children who operate and learn via the Right Brain for the first 2-3 years (read author Schore) have some willful desire to overcome their parents and plot against them. That just is not remotely appropriate or accurate.

[atheistjd]

I shall now replace the work "spank" with the word "hotdog".

Hotdogging a child with an implement until he wets himself is abuse. Hotdogging a child until they overcome their natural instinct to struggle against a painful stimulus is abuse. Hotdogging a child calmly and in a detached fashion while praying and ignoring their cries for you to stop is fucked the hell up.

Following the pearl's teachings on proper hotdog methods teach a parent to overcome their instinct to soothe and aid their child. Their teachings to hotdog children and "train" them alienates a child from a parent by instilling a relationship of fear rather than respect. Hotdogging a child with no realistic end can cause permanent damage to a child, and death.

It doesnt matter if I say "spank", "beat", "abuse", or "hotdog". What matters is the end result.

The best way to "train" a child is to educate them. To use your skills and calmly explain to them why their behavior is wrong and how they have disappointed you. Teach them how to reason and weigh their actions vs the likely end result. Resorting to painful stimuli is the lazy way to do it.

Whoa, whoa - reason? For themselves? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here... it is SO HARD to brainwash human being that can't think for themselves - automatons are MUCH easier to keep in the fold... Just look at our lovely friends in the Westboro Baptist cult.

[marmalade]

We had to take those tests in high school, along with the Myers-Briggs. I was a melancholy and an INFP, now I lean toward INFJ.

eta: why yes, I am derailing the thread, why do you ask?

INTJ, but all moderate. My strongest tendency (50, most of the others are around 33) is intuition, which is usually dead on. I bet our troll was a victim of abuse; attitudes and defenses like his don't come out of the blue, they are borne from experience and/or defense of something he knows deep down is absolutely wrong in ANY society.

[ChickeyMonkey]

I have an honest question and would like an opinion from the noncrazies.

My pediatrician recommended pressing the baby's face into the breast when he would bite while nursing. He would let go quickly and then we'd go on our merry way nursing without the teeth. Then he got to an age where I could see that he was testing/playing with me. He'd bite me while nursing, but he'd have this smile on his face and look at me like he was testing me to see if I'd let him continue biting me until he decided to let up, or if I'd press him into my boob again. Now he's 2.5 years old and still likes to nurse to go to sleep (which I don't really mind, but this is gonna have to stop soon, kwim?) and the only time he bites is when he's asleep and clenches his jaw, or something. Usually an, "ow! ow! OW!" will wake him enough to get him to stop biting.

When he gets mad, he'll bite me (he's stopped doing it so much, thank god), but his language skills aren't as developed as his motor skills are, so I attribute the biting to being frustrated and not being able to express that frustration in any other way than physically lashing out. So, I figured, why not use the same technique for his biting when he's, say, biting my arm or leg? I never press his face down for very long - I want to get him to let go, not suffocate him. After a little while of angry crying and trying to console him, he'll calm down and ask to nurse. This scenario usually happens because he's tired and needs a nap but will fight it (as all little kids seem to do).

So, my long-winded story is to ask if this would be considered abusive by some of you? I didn't pull his hair when he'd bite while nursing because why would I do that? To my logic, biting=not being able to breathe (pressed into boob)= won't bite because I want to nurse.

As mild as the hair-pulling is compared to everything else the Pearls advocate, I'm now wondering if what I've been doing would be seen as a bad thing?

Also, I hate that Pearl uses the word "licks" for hitting. The kid isn't an ice cream cone and the hitting implement is not a tongue. Just...ew.

[JesusFightClub]

INTJ, but all moderate. My strongest tendency (50, most of the others are around 33) is intuition, which is usually dead on. I bet our troll was a victim of abuse; attitudes and defenses like his don't come out of the blue, they are borne from experience and/or defense of something he knows deep down is absolutely wrong in ANY society.

INTP here :) Can't remember the detailed breakdown. I am wary of such things...my "official" IQ is 82 which makes me think sometimes tests just do not work for people. I make no claims to genius or even particular intelligence but the definition for someone of an IQ in the 80s doesn't seem like me. Mind you, I could just be in denial ;)

Moving on, a quick slap to the *clothed* bum or reaching hand of a toddler too young to reason with is a sensible thing as a discipline method IMO. With mum or dad's bare hand. I can see the rationale of not doing it in anger. But why the ritual?

Fundies seem to insist on weird, complex rituals for a simple disciplinary act. My mum just used to give me a slap like that and say "That's naughty! Don't do that again!" and as it was so rare I was startled into compliance. Whereas fundies...they have prescribed forms of words, making the child walk to a certain place, making them take their pants down, them ritually getting hit a certain number of times then apologising and if they don't apologise well enough, mum or dad continues...wtf? That is totally satisfying the parents, not disciplining the child.