24 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou seem to be confused.
It would seem that RO believes that the way to the truth is through disingenuousness and deceit. RO was given a clear example of this and seems to be taking the tack that if he doesn’t acknowledge it, it isn’t true. This seems to have occurred much too frequently to have been an aberration.
As an example, RO knows full well, I’ve posted it often enou . That there are still those who advocate hitting defenseless children is too much for words.
I have not commented on whether or not the AAPs anti-smacking stance is correct or legitimate. I have asserted that there is no evidence that child swatting as defined is harmful and that the AAP had not said that it is.
There is a difference. Unfortunately with your binary view of life you can't conceive there could be a distinction.
The AAP did not always have a complete anti-smacking stance and I do not believe they changed it because they came across evidence that child swatting as defined was harmful. If you have evidence that this is the case, please post it.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneShould we ban parents from shouting at their children?
The following definitions of "corporal punishment" and "spanking" used in Larzelere's article were interesting:
[quote][b]I will use the definitions of corporal punishment and spanking from the only scientific consensus
conference on corporal punishment, co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics in
1996:
Spanking [called smacking in ...[text shortened]... is refusal to look at the "big picture" and it's no wonder that he was "confused".
24 Nov 12
2 edits
Positions taken by members of the Academy:
Between 1997-OCT and 1998-MAR, the Academy conduced a mail survey to 1,629 active members, selected at random from their membership lists. They obtained a response rate of 62% which is unusually high for this type of survey. "The survey defined corporal punishment as 'the use of spanking as a form of discipline. It does not include hitting, beating or other actions that might be considered child abuse'."
Results were:
31.4% were completely opposed to the use of corporal punishment.
53.4% generally oppose corporal punishment, but feel that an occasional spanking under certain circumstances can be effective.
13.6% favor the limited use of corporal punishment.
1.5% were unsure.
When asked whether "Pediatricians must try to eliminate the practice of spanking as a form of discipline:"
50% agreed
30% disagreed
20% were unsure.
Question to TOO : We're the 67% of members of the AAP who believed that some form of CP was acceptable 'barbaric' and 'ignorant'?
24 Nov 12
5 edits
To review the history behind the policy, in 1992 a state resolution soliciting the Academy to condemn all corporal punishment by parents prompted the AAP board to enlist the Committee on Psychosocial Development of Family and Child (CPDFC) to develop a policy statement. After much debate among the AAP membership, the Academy cosponsored a scientific symposium in 1996 on corporal punishment. The goal was to develop consensus statements regarding the scientific evidence on the long-term and short-term effects of corporal punishment on children. After two days of presentation and discussion the Committee (of which Den Trumbull was a member) concluded that current research was insufficient to condemn a parent’s use of disciplinary spanking. The conference Co-chairpersons, Drs. Stanford Friedman and Kenneth Schonberg, concluded “Given a relatively ‘healthy’ family life in a supportive environment, spanking in and of itself is not detrimental to a child or predictive of later problems…[T]here is a lack of research related to the use of corporal punishment.”
Two years after the corporal punishment conference, and armed with no additional substantial evidence, the CPDFC developed the AAP policy “Guidance for Effective Discipline” which describes spanking as harmful, ineffective and morally wrong. This statement, issued six years after the resolution, is fatally flawed by its reliance upon philosophical, not scientific, evidence.
Since 1998 two research pieces have been released that seriously conflict with the AAP policy. In 2000 Dr. Robert Larzelere published a literature review[ii], building upon his earlier review presented at the AAP Corporal Punishment Symposium in 1996. He reviewed over two hundred sixty recent studies on the effects of corporal punishment on children. In an effort to discover the beneficial versus detrimental outcomes of customary disciplinary spanking, he excluded studies that focused on abuse or overly severe physical punishment, or the use of physical punishment with teenagers. Dr. Larzelere concluded, “Research on spanking does not support an unconditional anti-spanking position at this time.”(p. 218) Furthermore, he found that “the stronger the causal conclusiveness of the [study] design, the more likely a study was to find beneficial child outcomes.” (p. 201)
In August of last year Dr. Diane Baumrind of the University of California at Berkeley presented her much-publicized findings on disciplinary spanking of young children.[iii] This is the first prospective longitudinal study to examine the effects of disciplinary spanking used with preschool children who were followed into adolescence. Dr. Baumrind, working from the unbiased Institute of Human Development at Berkeley, collected her data from direct observation of patients who used spanking to varying degrees over a twelve-year period. After in-depth statistical analysis of her high quality data, she found “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.” (p. 1) With the clarification that she is not an advocate of spanking, Dr. Baumrind concluded, “a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking is not warranted by causally relevant scientific evidence.” (p. 12)
In their respective research writings Dr. Baumrind and Dr. Larzelere have commented on the evidence promoted by spanking opponents, such as Murray Strauss. They point out that these anti-spankers defend their philosophical view with studies that are riddled with methodological flaws:
The inclusion of outcomes related to overly severe or abusive physical punishment.
The exclusion of parents using non-abusive, customary spanking.
The inclusion of physical punishment with adolescents.
The failure to account for baseline child misbehavior, referred to as “intervention selection bias.”
The reliance upon questionable responses from a single reporter.
The reliance upon adult recall of childhood experiences.
Dr. Larzelere and Dr. Baumrind each discovered that normative, or ordinary nonabusive, physical punishment administered in a lovingly firm and nurturing fashion to preschool children by their parents produced neutral or beneficial outcomes. Dr. Baumrind writes that the success of any disciplinary practice is largely dependent upon the child’s perception of the “parent as loving and responsive and committed to the child’s welfare.”
Since the majority of American parents and physicians regard disciplinary spanking as an appropriate form of punishment for children, and since the available research reveals no detrimental effects from its use, and since parents need a myriad of disciplinary techniques with young children, the AAP should not promote a position against all use of disciplinary spanking. Rather, the position should be one of openness to a parent’s use of disciplinary spanking with young children in a non-harmful manner, as evident in the current research (not current political correctness). In a position of complete neutrality, the AAP could caution against the use of harmful physical punishment, without promoting the specific use of spanking.
Enclosed you will find our analysis of the current discipline policy and its many flaws. The Board should direct the CPCDF to reevaluate its policy in light of the unsupportable claims made about the specific use of physical punishment. If a complete rewriting of the policy is not immediately possible, then, at minimum, the CPCDF should delete the nonscientific, highly opinionated, supplemental statements that follow the statement. As mentioned in our analysis, eleven of the thirteen citations used in the “supplemental information” section concern individual presentations of anti-spanking participants at the Consensus conference, not original research. The inclusion of these statements is flagrantly irresponsible and ashamedly philosophical.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has been an unwavering advocate for the child and a respected source for scientifically founded positions about the child. May the Academy not fail to take the same scientific approach to its core recommendation of childrearing.
Sincerely,
Den A. Trumbull, MD, FAAP
DuBose Ravenel, MD, FAAP
Friedman, Stanford B., MD, Schonberg, S. Kenneth, MD, & Sharkey, Mary (eds). “The short and long term consequences of corporal punishment.” supplement to Pediatrics, 1996; 98 (4):857-858.
Interesting that the AAP were prepared to issue a complete anti-smacking policy despite it being against the results of a very recent survey of its members which did not support this.
And after a conference aimed at discussing the scientific basis for an anti-smacking policy which concluded that there was no evidence to support it.
They have been widely criticised for pursuing an emotional and philosophical agenda rather than one based on evidence.
Who does that remind me of?
24 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI am sure it must be the liberal atheist evolutionists and maybe Dr. Spock.
[quote]To review the history behind the policy, in 1992 a state resolution soliciting the Academy to condemn all corporal punishment by parents prompted the AAP board to enlist the Committee on Psychosocial Development of Family and Child (CPDFC) to develop a policy statement. After much debate among the AAP membership, the Academy cosponsored a scien ...[text shortened]... ional and philosophical agenda rather than one based on evidence.
Who does that remind me of?
Dr. Spock was the first pediatrician to study psychoanalysis to try to understand children's needs and family dynamics. His ideas about childcare influenced several generations of parents to be more flexible and affectionate with their children, and to treat them as individuals, whereas the previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline, and that, e.g., babies should not be "spoiled" by picking them up when they cried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Spock
Originally posted by Rank outsiderEvidently RO is unable to follow his disingenuousness and deceit with anything more than more disingenuousness and deceit.
You seem to be confused.
I have not commented on whether or not the AAPs anti-smacking stance is correct or legitimate. I have asserted that there is no evidence that child swatting as defined is harmful and that the AAP had not said that it is.
There is a difference. Unfortunately with your binary view of life you can't conceive there could be ...[text shortened]... d swatting as defined was harmful. If you have evidence that this is the case, please post it.
Such is the mentality of one that advocates for the "right" to stike defenseless children even though there are proven effective non-violent methods available. The same type of mentality that advocates for the "right" to strike defenseless women. A mentality that is ignorant, wrongheaded and, yes, sickening and barbaric.
25 Nov 12
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneInteresting that you try and turn this into a debate on striking women. Is the only way you can engage in a debate to argue to about anything other than the issue at hand?
Evidently RO is unable to follow his disingenuousness and deceit with anything more than more disingenuousness and deceit.
Such is the mentality of one that advocates for the "right" to stike defenseless children even though there are proven effective non-violent methods available. The same type of mentality that advocates for the "right" to strike defenseless women. A mentality that is ignorant, wrongheaded and, yes, sickening and barbaric.
Do you think the AAP conference was wrong to conclude that:
Given a relatively ‘healthy’ family life in a supportive environment, spanking in and of itself is not detrimental to a child or predictive of later problems
Were the 67% of the members in the survey who thought spanking was OK in some circumstances 'barbaric' and 'ignorant'?
It's not my fault you were acting as the AAP's cheerleader a few posts, using the argument 'my pediatric association is bigger and better than yours', and now you want me to ignore what their members have to say. It was admittedly a weak and silly argument, but there you go, I was happy to take it in board and do some research and see what the true position is. And surprise, surprise, my take on their views is more accurate than yours.
So should I take what they have to say into account or not? If not, aren't you being myopic and hypocritical?
Do you have anything relevant to add to the debate or are you going to continue with the 'I'm right because I'm right' even though all the evidence suggests you are wrong.
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneA wise son heeds his father’s instruction,
Evidently RO is unable to follow his disingenuousness and deceit with anything more than more disingenuousness and deceit.
Such is the mentality of one that advocates for the "right" to stike defenseless children even though there are proven effective non-violent methods available. The same type of mentality that advocates for the "right" to strike defenseless women. A mentality that is ignorant, wrongheaded and, yes, sickening and barbaric.
But a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.
He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.
(Proverbs 13:1,24 NKJV)
Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of correction will drive it far from him.
(Proverbs 22:6,15 NKJV)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by Rank outsiderRO continues to provide evidence of the mentality required to advocate for the "right" to strike defenseless children - a clearly twisted way of thinking
Interesting that you try and turn this into a debate on striking women. Is the only way you can engage in a debate to argue to about anything other than the issue at hand?
Do you think the AAP conference was wrong to conclude that:
[quote]Given a relatively ‘healthy’ family life in a supportive environment, spanking in and of itself is not detri 'I'm right because I'm right' even though all the evidence suggests you are wrong.
Interesting that you try and turn this into a debate on striking women.
The reality is that I pointed out that those who strike defenseless women and strike defenseless children have a shared mentality. Of the two striking defenseless children is the more reprehensible since they are more helpless.
In RO's mind this is perceived as trying to "turn this into a debate on striking women", which it clearly was not.
Were the 67% of the members in the survey who thought spanking was OK in some circumstances 'barbaric' and 'ignorant'?
RO is referring to a the results of a "survey" he pasted earlier without providing a link which is suspicious in and of itself. Even if legit, the survey was from 15 years ago and does not indicate that "67% of the members in the survey...thought spanking was OK in some circumstances" as RO asserts.
The "67%" breaks down as follows:
53.4% generally oppose corporal punishment, but feel that an occasional spanking under certain circumstances can be effective.
13.6% favor the limited use of corporal punishment.
The reality is that the overwhelming bulk of the figure says that "occasional spanking under certain circumstances can be EFFECTIVE". Just because it can be EFFECTIVE does not necessarily mean it is condoned. In my first post, the author acknowledged that while striking a child can have immediate effect, it has long-term problems associated with it and that there are alternate methods available that are also effective. Therefore the striking of children cannot be condoned.
What's more the fact that the AAP currently holds the following stance clearly shows that it does not condone it:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
In RO's mind what is termed "effective" is perceived as "OK".
Do you think the AAP conference was wrong to conclude that:
Given a relatively ‘healthy’ family life in a supportive environment, spanking in and of itself is not detrimental to a child or predictive of later problems
Once again this is from something RO pasted earlier without providing a link which is suspicious in and of itself. What's more the letter was written by someone who served with the ACP as vice president and board member. The ACP is an organization that does not seem to be bound by integrity. Even if the quoted "conclusion" was accurate, the reality is that the AAP adopted the following stance:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
The letter that RO posted seems to have been in protest of the above. Evidently the AAP did not find the contents of the letter to be compelling since their stance remains as above.
In RO's mind, something that may have been said earlier is perceived as overriding a stance that was adopted later.
It's not my fault you were acting as the AAP's cheerleader a few posts, using the argument 'my pediatric association is bigger and better than yours', and now you want me to ignore what their members have to say. It was admittedly a weak and silly argument, but there you go, I was happy to take it in board and do some research and see what the true position is. And surprise, surprise, my take on their views is more accurate than yours.
RO absurdly has perceived outdated quotes from unknown sources as the "true position" of the AAP while the following is in reality their "true position":
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
RO absurdly has tried to depict my argument as "'my pediatric association is bigger and better than yours' which of course is not at all an accurate depiction of my argument.
It's unfortunate that RO seems to sincerely believe that these twisted lines of thought constititute "reason". But then if RO was about "reason", would he be advocating for the "right" to strike defenseless children?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneFascinating stuff. (Munch, munch on popcorn.) 😵
RO continues to provide evidence of the mentality required to advocate for the "right" to strike defenseless children - a clearly twisted way of thinking
[b]Interesting that you try and turn this into a debate on striking women.
The reality is that I pointed out that those who strike defenseless women and strike defenseless children have a shared ocating for the "right" to strike defenseless children?[/b]
Simple fact is, you have been pwned multiple times in this thread by multiple posters, especially RO. Heck, I also pwned you too, in my displaying your willful ignorance about how your own reference defines its most central term and how it obviously does not support the stance you assumed.
Best thing to do here is to just fess up to the obvious fact (you know, the one you have been doing your best to systematically ignore or obscure) that you have no actual support for your categorical blanket stance against all conceivable instances of child-striking, even granting that you have support for a stance against instances of child-striking that qualify as instances of CP by any typical definition of that term. Second best thing, just let this thread go gentle into that good night....
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloit happens to me all the time, you are correct, its best just to take the medicine.
Fascinating stuff. (Munch, munch on popcorn.) 😵
Simple fact is, you have been pwned multiple times in this thread by multiple posters, especially RO. Heck, I also pwned you too, in my displaying your willful ignorance about how your own reference defines its most central term and how it obviously does not support the stance you assumed.
Best thi ...[text shortened]... ition of that term. Second best thing, just let this thread go quietly into that good night....
Originally posted by LemonJelloSeriously?
Fascinating stuff. (Munch, munch on popcorn.) 😵
Simple fact is, you have been pwned multiple times in this thread by multiple posters, especially RO. Heck, I also pwned you too, in my displaying your willful ignorance about how your own reference defines its most central term and how it obviously does not support the stance you assumed.
Best thi ...[text shortened]... ition of that term. Second best thing, just let this thread go quietly into that good night....
It's unfortunate that you seem to continue to lack the maturity to objectively assess what has been posted on this thread.
If you believe you have, then I suggest you go back and reread everything with an unbiased eye.
Be sure to check out the definitions I pasted on the previous page. Perhaps it'll help you to begin to come to grips with the foolishness of your approach. If you need help understanding the import of the definitions, let me know and I'll try to explain it to you.
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou can get the survey from the AAP website for the payment of $12.
RO continues to provide evidence of the mentality required to advocate for the "right" to strike defenseless children - a clearly twisted way of thinking
[b]Interesting that you try and turn this into a debate on striking women.
The reality is that I pointed out that those who strike defenseless women and strike defenseless children have a shared ...[text shortened]... ing for the "right" to strike defenseless children?[/b]
As your concern is for the welfare of children, this would seem a small price to pay.
There is no evidence that child swatting gives rise to any long term problems. Murray Straus has not said this. Stop trying to imply he has.
If he has, please post the evidence. It's inconvenient, I know, but we won't accept what you have to say until you do.
27 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, seriously.
Seriously?
It's unfortunate that you seem to continue to lack the maturity to objectively assess what has been posted on this thread.
If you believe you have, then I suggest you go back and reread everything with an unbiased eye.
Be sure to check out the definitions I pasted on the previous page. Perhaps it'll help you to begin to come to grip ...[text shortened]... p understanding the import of the definitions, let me know and I'll try to explain it to you.
You ask us to re-read the irrelevant material you have posted. Yet you will not give reasoned arguments as to why you dismiss the work of Robert Larzelere, which is relevant.
Your argument against him amounts to nothing more than 'he doesn't agree with me so clearly his views are not worth considering'. If you need help understanding what he has to say, please let me know and I'll try to explain it to you.
One final time : is Robert Larzelere ignorant on this issue?