01 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo surprise that RO made an accusation about my "misrepresentation of the facts" and then refused to cite examples. With RO there's been an ongoing stream of deceit pretty much from the beginning. His accusation is positively RCesque in that he accuses others of that which he is guilty.
No I didn't think you would answer the question and would try and steer it somewhere else.
Do you agree that it is possible for someone to both advocate a no smacking policy and also believe that not all child smacking is harmful?
A couple of posts ago I said the following:
RO still can't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the fact that the position of American Academy of Pediatrics in that they "strongly oppose striking a child for any reason" clearly indicates that they do not conclude "evidence" presented by RO's "serious academics" is compelling. If they did, they would have adopted the same conclusion as the "serious academics". The fact is that they have not adopted the same conclusion. I don't know how to dumb this down any further, so that RO can understand this.
It's hard to say whether or not RO has managed to wrap his mind around the above. Unless believe that he's particularly dense, one would have to believe that he has and just doesn't want to admit it.
I wonder if RO has manage to wrap his mind around the fact that the AAP's position that it "strongly opposes striking a child for any reason" is the same as mine.
By all accounts that I've seen the AAP is a highly respected organization. The AAP has analyzed the available evidence and has drawn the same conclusion that I have. It is their current position.
On RO's side you have the ACP which by most reports is a disreputable organization. RO keeps trying to trot out "evidence" that largely was put out by the ACP, representatives of the ACP or affiliates of the ACP, is of ucited sources, and/or is outdated. None of it was compelling enough for the AAP to adopt the position of the ACP which supports RO's position. Yet somehow RO believes that HIS position IS compelling. Go figure.
01 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you agree that it is possible for someone to both advocate a no smacking policy and also believe that not all child smacking is harmful?
No surprise that RO made an accusation about my "misrepresentation of the facts" and then refused to cite examples. With RO there's been an ongoing stream of deceit pretty much from the beginning. His accusation is positively RCesque in that he accuses others of that which he is guilty.
A couple of posts ago I said the following:
[quote]RO still can' ...[text shortened]... on. Yet somehow RO believes that HIS position IS compelling. Go figure.
Just to be quite clear about this, do you think that the AAPs no smacking policy is conclusuve evidence that they believe that every act of striking of a child is harmful?
If you do, then you are misrepresenting the AAPs position. The only fact you have is that they have a no smacking policy. You have no evidence that they think that every instance of child smacking is harmful. In fact, the background as to when it was issued, the content within which it is presented in its website all point to the fact that they do not have any such evidence or consider it harmful in every instance.
As a reminder, as you keep wanting to mischaracterise my position, the debate is not about whether it is legitimate to advocate a no smacking position. I acknowledged this when I described your position as 'valid' in my opening response to you.
It is about whether mild child swatting as defined is harmful. You cannot claim that the AAP thinks it is simply by reference to their no smacking policy and the fact that you are trying to present it as conclusive evidence of this is silly.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIn a last ditch attempt to "save face", RO has resorted trying to pretend that his position is something other than what it is. That he compounds it by accusing me of "mischaracteris[ing his] position" makes it all the more reprehensible.
Just to be quite clear about this, do you think that the AAPs no smacking policy is conclusuve evidence that they believe that every act of striking of a child is harmful?
If you do, then you are misrepresenting the AAPs position. The only fact you have is that they have a no smacking policy. You have no evidence that they think that every instan policy and the fact that you are trying to present it as conclusive evidence of this is silly.
As a reminder, as you keep wanting to mischaracterise my position, the debate is not about whether it is legitimate to advocate a no smacking position. I acknowledged this when I described your position as 'valid' in my opening response to you.
It is about whether mild child swatting as defined is harmful.
Following is from my OP which was a blanket response to a number of posters:
More than a few are advocating striking a child as a back-up, as a last resort, when the child is too young to reason, etc. Hopefully the following will help them understand how ignorant and wrongheaded that view is. Hopefully the following will keep them from continuing to repeat their ignorant views. There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period.
Clearly I've taken a position that is strongly opposed to the striking of children for any reason. Interestingly enough it is the same position as that of the AAP.
From RO's OP on this thread:
I might use the type of smack you are suggesting where the situation related to something which might otherwise result in severe danger to the child. E.g. the child runs out into the road despite your constant warnings on the matter.
It is the rarity value that gives it the force to make the child to remember for the future. And if they don't remember, you may not have the chance to use the naughty step at all in future. But it would only be a 'lesser of two evils' things.
Clearly RO is advocating allowing the striking of a child under certain circumstances. He even called it an "evil".
RO's opening response to me in it's entirety:
I don't think anyone is fundamentally disagreeing with this.
On the day that my son thought it was a great joke to run into the road repeatedly, the "immediate situation effectiveness" might have been exactly what was required. The fact that he might have reverted back to doing this later in the day might have been irrelevant. And trust me, I had said "No" and "Stop" repeatedly.
Actually I didn't smack him, but I simply said I could imagine scenarios where this might be the lesser of two evils if other methods are unavailable or not working.
Resorting to insults does nothing to aid the case you are making, by the way. You have a valid position which would be better presented purely objectively.
Clearly RO reiterates that he is advocating allowing the striking of a child under certain circumstances.This is clearly in opposition of my position. This is what we've been debating. Note that he once again calls it an "evil". Odd thing to call something he's now trying to pass off as "not harmful".
The sad thing is that RO might actually believe the tripe he keeps serving up.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou really do look remarkably silly referring to my colloquial use of 'evil' in the way you do.
In a last ditch attempt to "save face", RO has resorted trying to pretend that his position is something other than what it is. That he compounds it by accusing me of "mischaracteris[ing his] position" makes it all the more reprehensible.
[b]As a reminder, as you keep wanting to mischaracterise my position, the debate is not about whether it is legitim ng is that RO might actually believe the tripe he keeps serving up.
Actually, when I started on this thread, I was instinctively in support of the no smacking
position other than in exceptional circumstances.
You have helped to convince me that it is too extreme a stance to take, by drawing my attention to studies that demonstrate that child swatting is not harmful. I am pleased to have improved my knowledge of this topic, and in that sense I am grateful to you.
You just continue with the insults and misrepresentations as you have nothing else to offer the debate. I am not sure you ever put forward a single argument of your own to support your case, other than the 'reverse slippery slope argument' which was too silly for words.
You just quote any source you find which you think supports your case, most of which actually undermine it when you look at it in an objective fashion or are just irrelevant. When this is pointed out to you, you revert back to the insults.
Unless you have anything better, I think this thread is well past its sell by date. But you have had 30 pages to put forward an argument, and it remains curiously non-existent. All the evidence shows that child swatting as defined is not harmful and therefore the decision of whether to use it or not remains a matter of personal preference.
You and I choose not to, others don't.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderActually, when I started on this thread, I was instinctively in support of the no smacking
You really do look remarkably silly referring to my colloquial use of 'evil' in the way you do.
Actually, when I started on this thread, I was instinctively in support of the no smacking
position other than in exceptional circumstances.
You have helped to convince me that it is too extreme a stance to take, by drawing my attention to studies th or not remains a matter of personal preference.
You and I choose not to, others don't.
position other than in exceptional circumstances.
You have helped to convince me that it is too extreme a stance to take, by drawing my attention to studies that demonstrate that child swatting is not harmful.
Let's see, in RO's previous post he said the following:
"As a reminder, as you keep wanting to mischaracterise my position, the debate is not about whether it is legitimate to advocate a no smacking position. I acknowledged this when I described your position as 'valid' in my opening response to you."
Now RO has reversed field once again and not only doesn't see my position as 'valid', but evidently claims he sees it as even less valid than he did before.
This is just more evidence of how RO twists the facts, from post to post even, in desperate attempts to try to come up with a valid argument. It's absurd.
All the evidence shows that child swatting as defined is not harmful and therefore the decision of whether to use it or not remains a matter of personal preference.
If, in fact, "All the evidence shows that child swatting as defined is not harmful", then reputable organizations such as the AAP would adopt that position. The AAP "STRONGLY opposes striking a child for any reason". Clearly the AAP has not drawn the same conclusion from the evidence as RO. His claim is absurd.
You just quote any source you find which you think supports your case, most of which actually undermine it when you look at it in an objective fashion or are just irrelevant.
Actually, the sources I've quoted are quite reputable and respected in the professional community. Much more so than ANY of the sources that RO has quoted. In fact, some the the sources quoted by RO are quite disreputable as I've shown. Yet another absurd claim by RO.
RO's behavior is reminiscent of young earth creationists making absurd claim after absurd claim ad nauseum in desperate attempts to prop up their position. They seem to believe that just because they think something, that makes it true. They then claim VICTORY on that basis. It's remarkable.
To be fair, claims made by bbarr and LemonJello are just as absurd. But at least they refrained from making absurd claim after absurd claim as has RO.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnegAs I said, unless you want to post some arguments or evidence, then all you have is a personal preference which I happen to share.
[b]Actually, when I started on this thread, I was instinctively in support of the no smacking
position other than in exceptional circumstances.
You have helped to convince me that it is too extreme a stance to take, by drawing my attention to studies that demonstrate that child swatting is not harmful.
Let's see, in RO's previous post he said at least they refrained from making absurd claim after absurd claim as has RO.[/b]
You really do need to calm down and think out some better arguments. You could have spent your time on this thread much more wisely than you have. I have modified my position as a result of your posts (albeit not in the way you would have hoped). You could modify them in a way you would prefer if you just did a bit more thinking, and a lot less ranting.
If your intention was to convince other posters of your position, then you must admit you have failed miserably. Rather than try and pin the blame on us, if you had devoted half the time and energy to answering some (actually any) of the points put to you, and less on the moral outrage, you would have stood a better chance.
It's not my fault if you cannot muster the arguments or evidence. Rather than post more rants, come back when you have worked out a more coherent line of reasoning and I will listen.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWell telling him that didn't work any of the other times, so I see little/no hope of it working this time.
As I said, unless you want to post some arguments or evidence, then all you have is a personal preference which I happen to share.
You really do need to calm down and think out some better arguments. You could have spent your time on this thread much more wisely than you have. I have modified my position as a result of your posts (albeit not in th ...[text shortened]... rants, come back when you have worked out a more coherent line of reasoning and I will listen.
He's not talking to you anyway... He's talking to some imaginary audience he thinks is watching and
agrees with him.
05 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderRO has made absurd claim after absurd claim ad nauseum of which I've pointed out many from as recently as his previous post.
As I said, unless you want to post some arguments or evidence, then all you have is a personal preference which I happen to share.
You really do need to calm down and think out some better arguments. You could have spent your time on this thread much more wisely than you have. I have modified my position as a result of your posts (albeit not in th rants, come back when you have worked out a more coherent line of reasoning and I will listen.
While it seems he'd like to believe that I haven't posted any arguments or evidence the facts show otherwise I pointed out in my previous post.
If, in fact, "All the evidence shows that child swatting as defined is not harmful", then reputable organizations such as the AAP would adopt that position. The AAP "STRONGLY opposes striking a child for any reason". Clearly the AAP has not drawn the same conclusion from the evidence as RO...the sources I've quoted are quite reputable and respected in the professional community. Much more so than ANY of the sources that RO has quoted. In fact, some the the sources quoted by RO are quite disreputable as I've shown.
Now it seems that RO has dug in his heels in a manner that is not unlike that of the young Earth creationists who after being presented with evidence to the contrary from reputable and respected sources dismiss it by presenting "evidence" from disreputable sources or by claiming that all that had been presented is "opinion".
05 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have expressed a view and supported it with actual evidence.
RO has made absurd claim after absurd claim ad nauseum of which I've pointed out many from as recently as his previous post.
While it seems he'd like to believe that I haven't posted any arguments or evidence the facts show otherwise I pointed out in my previous post.
[quote]If, in fact, "All the evidence shows that child swatting as defined is not ha disreputable sources or by claiming that all that had been presented is "opinion".
The AAP has a policy position and you have made wild assumptions about what it means and then gone on to assume they 'must' have evidence to support this wild assumption.
The circularity of the logic 'they must have the evidence because, if they didn't, they would not claim what they have claimed' beggars belief.
As does your claim that someone advocating a no smacking policy thinks that every instance of child swatting is harmful. Another wild assumption not supported by evidence or even the most basic level of common sense.
And definitely not the AAP's position.
05 Dec 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThe AAP has a policy position and you have made wild assumptions about what it means and then gone on to assume they 'must' have evidence to support this wild assumption.
I have expressed a view and supported it with actual evidence.
The AAP has a policy position and you have made wild assumptions about what it means and then gone on to assume they 'must' have evidence to support this wild assumption.
The circularity of the logic 'they must have the evidence because, if they didn't, they would not claim what they ce or even the most basic level of common sense.
And definitely not the AAP's position.
So in your mind posting the following and pointing out that it is essentially the same position as my own requires "wild assumptions"?
"The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason."
The AAP has concluded that such a position is warranted given the available evidence. This is my claim regarding the AAP. That you've tried to pretend that it is anything other than is purely of your own doing.