05 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk, so you agree that the AAPs position does not necessarily mean that they believe that every instance of child swatting is harmful.
[b]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.
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 str That you've tried to pretend that it is anything other than is purely of your own doing.[/b]
In which case the only evidence you had that anyone thinks that all child swatting is harmful has just gone up in smoke.
Nice debating with you.
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou seriously inferred that from the following?
Ok, so you agree that the AAPs position does not necessarily mean that they believe that every instance of child swatting is harmful.
In which case the only evidence you had that anyone thinks that all child swatting is harmful has just gone up in smoke.
Nice debating with you.
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.
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.
Do you consider yourself at all logical? I don't even know if even RJHinds could have possibly inferred that.
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk, so you think that the AAPs policy necessarily means that they believe every instance of child swatting is harmful?
You seriously inferred that from the following?
[quote][b]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.
So in your mind posting the following and pointing out that it is essentially the same position as my own requires "wil ...[text shortened]... elf at all logical? I don't even know if even RJHinds could have possibly inferred that.[/b]
Is that correct?
Well, it seems that RO is hopelessly lost.
Given that, I'll interject the following voices of reason:
“Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals. Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use,” Gershoff wrote in the American Psychological Association’s bimonthly journal.
Pasted from <http://drdorothy.info/?p=417>
The AAP has concluded that given the available evidence, the following stance is warranted:
The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly opposes striking a child for any reason.
Hopefully all parents will heed the above and never strike their children for any reason. There are alternate methods of discipline available that are effective. Parents only need educate themselves in those methods. Like I said, "There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period."
05 Dec 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk, so you think that the AAPs policy necessarily means that they believe every instance of child swatting is harmful?
Well, it seems that RO is hopelessly lost.
Given that, I'll interject the following voices of reason:
[quote]“Americans need to re-evaluate why we believe it is reasonable to hit young, vulnerable children, when it is against the law to hit other adults, prisoners, and even animals. Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demons ...[text shortened]... selves in those methods. Like I said, "There are no valid reasons to strike a child. Period."
Is that correct?
05 Dec 12
Some seem to believe that there's some "magic" line of the intensity and/or frequency of strikes, which if never crossed, will not cause harm to the child. Therefore, the intensity of a given strike must be forceful enough to get the child's attention, yet not cross the line. If the first strike does not get the child's attention, then the parent usually strikes the child increasingly harder until the child's attention is gained. Realistically, the parent cannot say with any degree of certainty whether or not a given strike has harmed the child or whether or not the frequency of strikes is harming the child. Not only this, the parent cannot say with any degree of certainty whether or not a given strike has caused the child to experience pain rather than "shock" or "surprise" (especially in the case of a 2 year old). Plus there's always the problem of the parent having sufficient control over the intensity of an intended strike - especially if the parent is emotional. To top it off, there are proven methods that don't entail striking a child making it totally unnecessary. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's remarkable how tenaciously some cling to the idea primarily because it's what they've done or it's what their childhood caregiver did - though they'd likely deny this.
05 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNearly all these considerations are denied by the definition of child swatting I posted and the circumstances of when it could be used.
Some seem to believe that there's some "magic" line of the intensity and/or frequency of strikes, which if never crossed, will not cause harm to the child. Therefore, the intensity of a given strike must be forceful enough to get the child's attention, yet not cross the line. If the first strike does not get the child's attention, then the parent usually ne or it's what their childhood caregiver did - though they'd likely deny this.
And by the way, I don't smack my son, and my parents didn't smack me. You will no doubt have to rationalise this by accusing me of lying.
But I will let you have the final say, as it's clearly important to you that you have it, and we have now broken through the 500 post barrier.
I just didn't want to let Bosse de Nage down.
Originally posted by Rank outsider"Child swatting" IS included.
Nearly all these considerations are denied by the definition of child swatting I posted and the circumstances of when it could be used.
And by the way, I don't smack my son, and my parents didn't smack me. You will no doubt have to rationalise this by accusing me of lying.
Try reading the first sentence.
If you disagree, then point out each "consideration" and state specifically why you don't think it is instead of continuing with your "chuck and duck" methodology.