07 Nov 12
6 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou said:
[b]I don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
Given the content of my last post (my last few posts for that matter), do you honestly believe that this is what I meant by my "position"? Does it even make the least bit sense that that's what I was referring to when I was speaking of my "position"?
Are you kidding?[/b]
"Spanking, as discussed here, refers to striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury."
I have no reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. I have no reason to believe that "swatting" (which I see as a euphemism for "spanking" ) would not be included in references to "spanking".
This seems like a good place to allow you to comment and question."
LJ accepted your invitation to comment and question. When he did, you complain about him commenting and questioning.
You say the author intended to mean the same by using the term spanking as that used by the Academy of American Pediatrics. I have posted evidence from the author you cite, and LJ agrees, that this is very much not the intention of the author.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"If this is indicative of the level at which you understand my posts, I can't say I like
[b]I don't think I need you to explain your position. Your position seems clear enough: you are blanketly against all conceivable instances of child-striking.
Given the content of my last post (my last few posts for that matter), do you honestly believe that this is what I meant by "my position"? Does it even make the least bit sense that that's ...[text shortened]... y posts, I can't say I like the chances of you ever understanding where I'm coming from.[/b]
the chances of you ever understanding where I'm coming from."
If you stopped insulting everyone who disagreed with your point of view and complaining that
everyone should just get it and actually explained your point of view then maybe we would
understand where you are coming from.
If you simply continue to insult us and whinge about how we are not just getting it instead of
answering are very reasonable questions then no, we don't have much chance of understanding
where you are coming from.
People often overestimate the clarity of their own writing, and underestimate how open to
interpretation it is.
We are not stupid, as you really aught to know by now, If we are not 'getting it' then it's either
because you are wrong, or you are not explaining yourself well enough.
Neither of which is our fault.
So again, get off your high horse, and actually explain what you mean rather than insulting us
and whining.
07 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWhat a disingenuous post.
You said:
"Spanking, as discussed here, refers to striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury."
I have no reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author. I have no reason to believe that "swatting" (which I see as a euphemism for "span author you cite, and LJ agrees, that this is very much not the intention of the author.
LJ accepted your invitation to comment and question. When he did, you complain about him commenting and questioning.
As I already explained to LJ: "...I was...clarifying how I was proceeding in explaining my position, since you didn't seem to understand it." For you to characterize it as "complain[ing] about him commenting and questioning" is a misrepresentation. How disingenuous.
You say the author intended to mean the same by using the term spanking as that used by the Academy of American Pediatrics.
Actually what I said was, "I have no reason to believe that this was not the intention of the author". There is a difference. Yet another misrepresentation. How disingenuous again.
I have posted evidence from the author you cite, and LJ agrees, that this is very much not the intention of the author.
If you are referring to what I think you are referring, it fell woefully short of your claim. How disingenuous again again.
07 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo again, get off your high horse, and actually explain what you mean rather than insulting us
[b]"If this is indicative of the level at which you understand my posts, I can't say I like
the chances of you ever understanding where I'm coming from."
If you stopped insulting everyone who disagreed with your point of view and complaining that
everyone should just get it and actually explained your point of view then maybe we would r high horse, and actually explain what you mean rather than insulting us
and whining.[/b]
and whining.
Seems like you're much more interested in defending your "honor" than allowing me to "explain what [I] mean".
Seems like this might be a good time to interject a little "historical perspective". Specifically that of the generally accepted levels of severity in the striking of children.
From what I gather, the level was once extremely severe and parents were convinced that their children were the better for it. Fortunately what has been generally accepted has been ratcheted down over time. I imagine that at each ratcheting down, there remained at each previous ratchet point parents who ignored whatever evidence was available that they were causing harm to their children and believed they knew best and remained convinced that their children were the better for it. Naturally they had their "reasons" and/or created excuses and/or created euphemisms in order to prop up their belief.
After enough ratchet points had been established it seems that at each subsequent ratchet point there would have been some discerning individuals who would have seen the downward trend. A subset of those would have also recognized that after each ratchet point, new evidence would be found that showed that harm was being caused to children at that given ratchet point. And so it went: new evidence; new ratchet point; parents with "reasons", excuses, euphemisms, etc. that allowed them to remain at previous ratchet points. And as always, again new evidence.
Seems that there also would have been some who would look at all this and decide that the prudent course of action would be to stop striking children altogether unless or until there was absolute evidence that no harm would be caused at a given level of severity. That they should adopt the view that the striking of children is harmful in and of itself unless proven otherwise.
Of course there would be many who would instead insist on keeping the view that they should remain at the current level until new evidence was once again found. Some might call this view "wrongheaded".
Comments?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAn epigraph to a chapter in Alice Miller's For Your Own Good quotes an 18th century German pedagogical text that urges parents to 'break the child's spirit' the better to subdue their inherent wickedness and call them to Order. Elsewhere I have read the account of an English officer in the Raj describing in astonishment how combat-seasoned Indian cavalrymen would let their children to ride them in play like horses and never dream of striking them. Then there is the documented acceptance among certain Papua New Guinea societies of genital-sucking to pacify restive infants. It seems to me that standards differ wildly and that the historical gradient you describe is a bland recasting of the myth of Progress.
Comments?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Hence, "historical perspective" is in quotes. That wasn't the point. It was just a vehicle for presenting a view of the topic.
An epigraph to a chapter in Alice Miller's For Your Own Good quotes an 18th century German pedagogical text that urges parents to 'break the child's spirit' the better to subdue their inherent wickedness and call them to Order. Elsewhere I have read the account of an English officer in the Raj describing in astonishment how combat-seasoned India ...[text shortened]... and that the historical gradient you describe is a bland recasting of the myth of Progress.
Not sure why anyone would assume it was to be taken literally.
07 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI didn't take it literally but as a tepid and somewhat specious fiction (hence 'myth'😉 at odds with the varieties of human experience. I'll leave it at that.
Well, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Hence, "historical perspective" is in quotes. That wasn't the point. It was just a vehicle for presenting a view of the topic.
Not sure why you seem to have taken it literally.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt seems you have the expectation that it should be in concert with "the varieties of human experience". It wasn't meant to convey that.
I didn't take it literally but as a tepid and somewhat specious fiction (hence 'myth'😉 at odds with the varieties of human experience. I'll leave it at that.
Not sure why anyone who understands that it wasn't to be taken literally would expect that it should. Perhaps you're just trying too hard to find fault with it.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI have little appetite for baloney*; you'll forgive me for passing on further helpings.
It seems you have the expectation that it should be in concert with "the varieties of human experience". It wasn't meant to convey that.
Not sure why anyone who understands that it wasn't to be taken literally would expect that it should. Perhaps you're just trying too hard to find fault with it.
*This is false. Depending on the recipe, I can feast on it with gusto. Yours, though, is served cold.
07 Nov 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes.
Seems like this might be a good time to interject a little "historical perspective". Specifically that of the generally accepted levels of severity in the striking of children.
From what I gather, the level was once extremely severe and parents were convinced that their children were the better for it. Fortunately what has been generally accepted has b ...[text shortened]... ew evidence was once again found. Some might call this view "wrongheaded".
Comments?
It would have been briefer if you had said 'No I don't have any evidence that mild and infrequent swatting of the backside of a child has any short, medium or long term detrimental consequences.'