|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:19:56 GMT -5
God is just keeping us busy! Satan, rather, is keeping us busy. If men would give themselves completely over to God, then there would be far less CSA. If every man would, then there would be no CSA. CSA is purely from Satan. So is a high IQ of God or of Satan?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:21:58 GMT -5
No. CSA is biological. That's why it's dangerous to believe that if you give yourself to God you won't ever give into your biological urges. People are all biologically wired differently. Some are attracted to young children. Giving yourself to God is not the answer and could be dangerous if you believe that's what it takes to stop you. That should be obvious when so many men in pastoral positions have committed CSA. Maybe they thought the same thing you do that if they were just faithful enough they wouldn't be a danger to children. Then they found out how wrong that was. You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really? Absolutely. How is it that you became attracted to whoever turns you on?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:23:55 GMT -5
It's understandable that power or control are huge issues in this world. Mankind has always felt so helpless that I believe that's why they started to worship things they thought did have control over them. At first it was the elements and as they evolved, religion became more and more complex. Appeasing those things that seem to hold humans 'hostage' has been going on for a very long time. So if people want to have more control in their lives, it's usually based on fear. My thoughts on it anyway. I agree, snow.
I really think that is where religion really started.
People still feel fearful & when they haven't the control over their lives that will help them be more comfortable with their surroundings, they tend to hand it over to a supernatural power. (or even natural "strong man" of some kind- like Jim Jones).
Such action relieves them from making decisions about how to act & gives them the comfort of a group where life is in more-or-less black & white.
Being in a group who all believe the same, also makes them more comfortable by believing that,
"Well, if all these people believes the same, it must be true!"
And the Christian church created their devil in a manner that humans would feel even more helpless -- so who would become more important to them? ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:37:36 GMT -5
Really. Pedophiles have several biological features which are similar to each other but different from the average of the population. Researchers haven't found the biological smoking gun yet, but it may not be so simple as there could be several factors together leading people to be attracted to children. If you have an attraction toward children (but don't act on it of course), you may possess some of those biological features but it is not typical of adults to be attracted to children. Similarly with homosexuality. Homosexuals are also biologically predisposed to their same sex attraction. They don't just dream it up so that they can have the privilege of being persecuted as second class citizens and perverts. Do you think they will eventually start passing laws that make it a hate crime to persecute pedophiles and let them carry on what they are biologically predisposed to do? Are you a pedophobe? I am not a pedophobe, but it is not morally correct to persecute a pedophobe. It is morally correct to punish offenders of the law. Laws are made to prevent people from hurting others, not to promote persecution or force people to think anything about anyone. Laws are about behaviors, not ideologies. Adult consenting homosexuals are not hurting anyone. Pedophiles tend to be hurt people egregiously. However, there are already laws to prevent the persecution of pedophiles. They're human beings and they have the same rights as anyone else. Applying those rights equally to anyone who hurts anyone else does not mean that pedophiles get excused -- and it does mean that they get punished LEGALLY and future victims are theoretically protected.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:53:42 GMT -5
If homosexuality were against the law, homosexual could possibly consider that persecution. Persecution is not about being against the law. Persecution is about prejudicial and bigoted discrimination against a class of people. It happens whether there are laws against it or not. Laws against things can be discriminatory, but they don't call them persecution. Persecution is the treatment of individuals by individuals. I wouldn't worry if I were you. There were also cultures where you were expected to throw deformed babies off cliffs. But you're right -- we still have people in our society who feel you should be able to do whatever you want to whoever you want. But it's not a civilized mentality.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 16:58:54 GMT -5
False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. Actually he's right, punishment is not correction. It will usually make matters worse. A great way to ruin a child is to inflict harm on him/her to "teach them a lesson". Wrong, it is a brutish and primitive parent who inflicts harm on a child to "establish their conscience". It establishes fear for those who are bigger and stronger than them, nothing more. It is a great way to kill conscience, or at least badly twist it. I have worked in more than 20 schools in my lifetime. In only one of those schools were parents arrested on campus for violence against their own children -- it happened at the school where violent children were sent. Children learn parenting skills from whoever parented them. That's where they learn their measure of patience and how to get things done.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 31, 2013 18:11:04 GMT -5
Most parents are not having children to raise cattle but to raise humans with their attending moral sensitivites. An astute parent knows that punishment has its place in establishing the conscience of humankind. This is why there is a clear distinction between acceptable physical chastisement and physical abuse. It worked for thousands of years. It is socially unacceptable now though, largely because many parents were not astute in their administering of physical punishment. On behalf of the reactionaries we must all be stupid now.... Y?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 31, 2013 18:22:00 GMT -5
False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. Actually he's right, punishment is not correction. It will usually make matters worse. A great way to ruin a child is to inflict harm on him/her to "teach them a lesson". Depends on the phase and personality of the child. Wrong, it is a brutish and primitive parent who inflicts harm on a child to "establish their conscience". No sometimes it's the mark of creativity on the part of the parent. Can be but it really depends on the phase and personality of the child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 18:46:51 GMT -5
Actually he's right, punishment is not correction. It will usually make matters worse. A great way to ruin a child is to inflict harm on him/her to "teach them a lesson". Depends on the phase and personality of the child. So now you have to be a child psychologist on when and where you are going to inflict pain on a child? Ahh, creativity. Like: "Most imaginative new way to hurt a child....leaves no bruises!" I had a father tell me that after he abused his 12 year old daughter with a major walloping over his knee that she cuddled up to him afterward. He was convinced she loved him more than ever.....
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 31, 2013 19:01:39 GMT -5
I know there are people of your mentality, but they are normally people who are more interested in conformative behavior than in an empathetic conscience. People of my mentality are interested in excellence period. False. In the course of a child's discipline, sometimes its appropriate to present or exercise a consequence as a punishment. You're right - such as spanking a kid for running out in traffic. It's neither a moral issue nor a matter of higher level thinking -- it's a life and death matter if you're negligent enough to give him the opportunity to run out in traffic.Kids will always have opportunities to "run out in the street". The most negligent parent of all is the one who thinks that he or she must censure themselves from instilling anything more than an academic sense of the tragedy in the child. My point was that if parents are smart enough to prevent their cattle from getting into trouble, they ought to be smart enough to prevent their children from needing punishment for something they do not understand. Some parents keep punishing them for the same thing over and over again because the kid does not have the mental capacity to make the connection. This is one place where social workers do come in. Most parents are not having children to raise cattle but to raise humans with their attending moral sensitivites. An astute parent knows that punishment has its place in establishing the conscience of humankind. Kids are NOT punished to give them moral sensitivities -- they are punished to make them do as they are told.Baloney. This is not true as a rule. An astute parent knows that keeping ones junk on the coffee table is not a moral issue -- it's simple a matter of the parent not wanting to pick up the mess or pay for broken things. Baloney. A parent has the perogative to not see their "messes" molested. An astute parent knows that actions taken by someone who does not have the ability to understand the morality of an issue, does not make it a moral issue Baloney. Social behavior is always moral and ethically significant. -- it's still a matter of self-interest on the part of the parents. An astute parent knows the difference between an obedient do-gooder and a conscientious thinker. Any dumb animal can be trained to behave -- people with a conscience are nurtured, not whipped into shape. You can't beat anyone into learning anything but obedience. OK It's not even a moral issue for adults to throw things on the floor -- it's a matter of whether they want to or not and whether it belongs to them. False. It's unquestionably an ethical matter when parents to throw things on the floor without good reason.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 31, 2013 19:12:54 GMT -5
Depends on the phase and personality of the child. So now you have to be a child psychologist on when and where you are going to inflict pain on a child? I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment. No sometimes it's the mark of creativity on the part of the parent. Ahh, creativity. Like: "Most imaginative new way to hurt a child....leaves no bruises!" You're silly. No, I just meant that children do need abrubt reality checks and redirecting sometimes. Can be but it really depends on the phase and personality of the child. I had a father tell me that after he abused his 12 year old daughter with a major walloping over his knee that she cuddled up to him afterward. He was convinced she loved him more than ever..... That sounds stupid on the part of that parent.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 31, 2013 20:07:25 GMT -5
So now you have to be a child psychologist on when and where you are going to inflict pain on a child? I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment. Ahh, creativity. Like: "Most imaginative new way to hurt a child....leaves no bruises!" You're silly. No, I just meant that children do need abrubt reality checks and redirecting sometimes. I had a father tell me that after he abused his 12 year old daughter with a major walloping over his knee that she cuddled up to him afterward. He was convinced she loved him more than ever..... That sounds stupid on the part of that parent. And you, lee, as punishment for your attitude, you need to go stand in the corner & read what pediatric physicians have to say about how "spanking" affects a child.
Then go to the blackboard & write one-hundred times, "I will never spank a child again!"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 31, 2013 21:41:59 GMT -5
Here for your perusal while you are standing in the corner:
Physical punishment in childhood associated with later mental disorders, study says
■ Physicians should make parents aware of the potential consequences of discipline, such as spanking and hitting, to avoid long-term health effects, experts say.
By Carolyne Krupa —
The saying “spare the rod, spoil the child” may be well-ingrained in North American society, but new research shows that physically punishing children can affect their mental health.
Corporal punishments such as spanking, hitting, pushing and grabbing are associated with the development of mood and anxiety disorders, substance abuse and personality disorders, says a study published online July 2 in Pediatrics (link).
Pediatricians and family physicians should talk with parents about healthy ways of disciplining their children and recommend they avoid physical punishment, said Tracie O. Afifi, PhD, lead study author and assistant professor in the Dept. of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
“There are still a lot of people that believe that it is safe to hit your child,” she said. “We’re suggesting that physical punishment should not be used on children of any age. We need to focus more on positive reinforcement.”
Researchers analyzed 2004-05 national data on 34,653 adults 20 and older. They found that the 6% of adults who experienced harsh physical punishment as children were more prone to Axis I and Axis II mental disorders, such as major depression, mania and schizophrenia.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 22:23:22 GMT -5
I know there are people of your mentality, but they are normally people who are more interested in conformative behavior than in an empathetic conscience. People of my mentality are interested in excellence period. Kids will always have opportunities to "run out in the street". The most negligent parent of all is the one who thinks that he or she must censure themselves from instilling anything more than an academic sense of the tragedy in the child. This is one place where social workers do come in. Baloney. This is not true as a rule. GOTTCHA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2013 22:45:10 GMT -5
So now you have to be a child psychologist on when and where you are going to inflict pain on a child? I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment. Regardless of dictionary changes you think people are trying to make, the disciplining of children does not have to include inflicting pain on them. We have centuries of proof that it is counter productive in which there has been a false belief that behaviour modification through violent means is virtuous. As soon as you teach children that violence is the means to getting your way, then they are taught that it is ok to practice in adult life too. One has to wonder why it is ok to hit your child when he spills his milk but it is not ok to go next door and hit your neighbour because his dog messed up your lawn. Do you realize that if children were born full size that you would never consider hitting them to discipline them? So you only hit them because you are big and they are little. If it was a fair fight, you would not do it. Now you are changing words just like the people you complain about who want to change the dictionary. Why not say it plainly? You think kids need to be hit sometimes so that they will see things your way. Do those reality checks really have to be done by violent means? You are teaching your child that resolving problems through violence is an acceptable methodology. [/quote] It was worse than just stupid, it was sick. My wife and I never socialized with them again, we were both sickened and that was before we even had kids. Yet the only difference between them and other pain administrators is a matter of degrees. Pain is pain. One good rule in child rearing is this: don't do anything to your child that is illegal to do to your dog.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 31, 2013 23:11:58 GMT -5
People of my mentality are interested in excellence period. I have a little more concern for the less than excellent.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 1, 2013 9:16:04 GMT -5
You mean to tell me that people are actually saying these days that adults being attracted to children is just some genetic thing one is predisposed to? Really? Never said anything about it being genetic. It is as Ram puts it, the way they're wired. Has nothing to do with God. Seems to me that we're dealing with a larger issue than sexual attraction. From what I've read on WINGS, pedophiles aren't necessary sexually attracted to children. They're attracted to the control that they can have over another - children are simply the easiest targets. Am I off-bat on this, somehow?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 1, 2013 10:41:38 GMT -5
Never said anything about it being genetic. It is as Ram puts it, the way they're wired. Has nothing to do with God. Seems to me that we're dealing with a larger issue than sexual attraction. From what I've read on WINGS, pedophiles aren't necessary sexually attracted to children. They're attracted to the control that they can have over another - children are simply the easiest targets. Am I off-bat on this, somehow? Not completely. They do like the power. But they also are attracted to younger targets. I know this from speaking to some pedophiles that have come through the half way house I worked at. The ones I talked to still were concerned that they would reoffend. One in particular that I remember was saying that he knew he would reoffend if given the opportunity and that he was disgusted with himself. He wanted to be kept locked up so he couldn't, but he was in Day parole soon going into Full Parole and that meant he was having access again. He felt it was just a matter of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 11:12:28 GMT -5
Firstly I am not in favour of the physical chastisement of children, but then again I'm certain that the majority of parents who do exercise this authority over their children also feel the same way? I don't think it does anyone any good to take matters to extremes either way. I like the idea of letting "socially unacceptable" run its course, but with sufficient room for understanding those parents who find it necessary (many exist) to physically chastise their kids. I don't like the term "corporal punishment" when referring to the physical chastisement of children as things like "the cat o' nine tails," "lashes," "whipping," etc., were all forms of "corporal punishment" formerly used in armed services or in prisons, etc., and come to mind and have no place in the field of child chastisement.
To my mind this is all about degree and regularity of the chastisement. It should NEVER become a systematic form of punishment, even within low levels, but I personally see nothing wrong or harmful in carefully measured physical chastisement which is only used as often as is necessary for the correction of the child. Of course this must be within the bounds of that which is not harmful to the child and must NOT include beatings, whippings or anything which closely resembles that type of behaviour. I believe the current climate of being socially unacceptable goes a long way towards restraining many normal parents with the level and frequency of chastisement levied out. Correction is a key element, not punishment. When the latter is applied there is the tendency, as in the past, to make the punishment fit the crime, and that opens the doors to higher and higher levels of physical chastisement. Every time a child repeated the same type of misdemeanour, up went the level or duration of the punishment "to drive home the message."
However, it is not easy being a parent, and a degree of sympathy and understanding must be shown to those parents who find it necessary to exercise low levels of physical chastisement, rather than seek to criminalise or castigate them. No one will ever convince me that low level physical chastisement of a child is always unnecessary, or that it results in long-term psychological damage to a child. If there is physical damage caused, even short term, then the chastisement meted out is way beyond what I am talking about.
In comparison I recall the following from my childhood:
1) Despite being told to walk, not run and be careful, I often did run carelessly and fell onto cold, hard concrete pavements and suffered a fair amount of cuts, bruises and grazings to various parts of my body, especially my knees and elbows. These pavements, pillars or whatever I came into contact with showed me no love. They callously and cruelly inflicted injury upon injury onto me as a result of my carelessness or misbehaviour. Today I am left mentally scarred by these cruel objects and suffer daily from flashbacks and nightmares arising from such incidents.
2) I cannot walk near a swing park, not even today. I was severely hit on the head once by a returning swing after I had dismounted from it. Although I had been careless in the way I had left the swing, it had shown me no consideration and callously clouted me on the back of my head with its sharp edge. I received a swelling and blood poured from the wound. You have no idea how many nightmares I have about playground swings. I have to avoid them at all costs. It was a very traumatic thing!
3) Please don't mention the word football to me. Please don't! The amount of cuts, bruises, marks, bleeding noses I picked up during the rough and tumble of the game, have virtually destroyed me mentally and emotionally. I just never learned my lesson. No sooner would I be patched up from one injury, I wanted to get out there and repeat the same old mistakes, sooner or later suffering further injuries. It wrecked my development. If I see children playing football today, I immediately become physically and mentally sick.
4) I wish there were no such things as trees. A a growing boy, my pals and I often visited the nearby woods and climbed trees and sometimes we fell down or got injured against branches, and there were the times we got jagged within an inch of our lives when we entered into patches of gorse, or worse still became entangled in nature's barbed wire, i.e. the bramble thickets, and became cut to ribbons, requiring weeks to heal properly. Even typing this conjures up such extreme psychological pain that I cannot bring myself to draw on the many more examples of nature's physical chastisement I suffered, each of which was meted out on a punishment to fit the crime basis, or often even more excesively.
If you do not believe me when I cite the the type of emotional and psychological damage I currently suffer as a result of these various barbaric abuses, then I can do no more than refer you to the child psychologists.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 1, 2013 15:39:19 GMT -5
Well Ram, I must say it does explain some of the things we all love about you... lol
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2013 16:00:33 GMT -5
Well Ram, I must say it does explain some of the things we all love about you... lol It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 1, 2013 16:29:10 GMT -5
Well Ram, I must say it does explain some of the things we all love about you... lol It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims. fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2013 16:44:26 GMT -5
It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims. fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here. Yeah, its probably not the first time Ram's humour has gotten him into trouble. Hopefully no comparison with CSA was intended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 17:11:05 GMT -5
Well Ram, I must say it does explain some of the things we all love about you... lol It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims. In my post above can you point out one reference to CSA? Perhaps you are extracting something from my post which isn't there? Is not the gist of my post "child physical chastisement?" If you consider CSA to be a form of child physical chastisement then I can understand your off base interpretations. You already know my feelings about CSA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 17:14:41 GMT -5
fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here. Yeah, its probably not the first time Ram's humour has gotten him into trouble. Hopefully no comparison with CSA was intended. Please identify the part of my post which makes a comparison with CSA. If you fail to do this I will rightly assume that it is YOU who is lacking in information about CSA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 17:21:13 GMT -5
It also suggests to me that RAM really has no idea of the enormity of the impact child sexual abuse has on victims. fixit, I believe he is only referring to physical abuse on this thread. Also, I believe he joking and being a little factitious. I am quite sure he can be around swing sets and hear the word football without becoming mentally and physically ill. Could be wrong, so I'll let Ram tell me if I'm off base here. Actually Snow, my post was not about Child Physical abuse, but directed at Child Physical Chastisement. The former is illegal. The latter is not in most countries (provided it does not enter the legally defined domain of abuse). The first half of my post, I was being serious. However, as you rightly interpreted, the second part I was being a little facetious; well perhaps a bit more than that, along with my usual tongue in cheek mischief.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2013 17:35:39 GMT -5
I'm not in favor of chronic, corporeal punishment. I'm dealing with the attitudes people take about discipline in general. Some people think the word "punishment" needs to be excised from the dictionary of parents and replaced with the word "consequences". I think this is double speak and depending on the occasion and child, it might be better to present and/or administer a consequence as a punishment. And you, lee, as punishment for your attitude, you need to go stand in the corner & read what pediatric physicians have to say about how "spanking" affects a child.
Then go to the blackboard & write one-hundred times, "I will never spank a child again!"Why do you fault my attitude? I think it is perfectly acceptable to give up to two sharp swats to a six-and-under, child's tush with the hand to get their attention and say "No" with visceral impress.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 1, 2013 17:39:13 GMT -5
Here for your perusal while you are standing in the corner: The risk of any severe parent, whether they discipline corporeally or not is the child may doubt they are loveable.
|
|