|
Post by Lee on Aug 9, 2013 18:25:43 GMT -5
Intelligent spankings are neither violence, threats, or put-downs but interruptions to self-destructive behavior. "Intelligent spankings" is sort of like "loving pain". Spankings, almost by definition, are put-downs. It shows domination of the stronger over the weaker. "If I don't like your behavior I can hit you and there is nothing you can do." If the child was a dog it would lay on its back and expose its genitals. First of all, a dog laying on its back has very little to do with exposing its genitals for sexual gratifation and exploitation. Second, it is an aspect of God that he is bigger, which for whatever reason atheists rabidly deny Not true. Not every parent is so lucky to have a child that is never in need of a threat (what is the difference between a threat and warning to a consequence) or a put-down (what parent is so blessed they would never have a child in need of an attitude-adjustment.) Children learn their behaviors from the adults that raise them. If their behavior is such that you feel they need to be threatened with physical punishment perhaps you should be talking to the adult in the mirror. That may well be the individual that needs the attitude-adjustment. Think about it - who taught your child to behave as s/he does? That can happen. Two swats to the butt isn't violence. Using pain to correct behavior is not justified. Imagine being trained for a new job by someone using pain as a method. Nothing severe - just a mild electric shock to the ear lobe. I experience pain-correction at my job all the time. What kind of rarified-air are you privileged to? Many fathers have had to discourage the physical intimitation of their grown sons .... physically. Will you categorically condemn them? Many fathers who raised their children with physical punishment as the teaching methodology? If you start using violence as a training methodology when the child is one year old, guess what the child learns and then uses as an adult? Might makes right. "So Dad - now that I have the might I will make the rules." Just as many sons have been grateful for their whippings.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 9, 2013 18:56:44 GMT -5
I think everyone who is involved in ridding the church of CSA would agree that CPA in the church is also unacceptable.
Let's get all those CPA perpetrators in the church behind bars.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2013 19:48:24 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching? If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet? By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell.Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Are you saying a child/adult isn't capable of evil? Are you saying the human race is free of demonic and evil intention? Lee posted: "By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell." Stop mixing up categories here, lee. The subject is corporal punishment of CHILDREN. Changing the goal posts only shows how one can't back up their argument without resorting to logical fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2013 19:55:09 GMT -5
"Intelligent spankings" is sort of like "loving pain". Spankings, almost by definition, are put-downs. It shows domination of the stronger over the weaker. "If I don't like your behavior I can hit you and there is nothing you can do." If the child was a dog it would lay on its back and expose its genitals. First of all, a dog laying on its back has very little to do with exposing its genitals for sexual gratifation and exploitation. Second, it is an aspect of God that he is bigger, which for whatever reason atheists rabidly deny Children learn their behaviors from the adults that raise them. If their behavior is such that you feel they need to be threatened with physical punishment perhaps you should be talking to the adult in the mirror. That may well be the individual that needs the attitude-adjustment. Think about it - who taught your child to behave as s/he does? That can happen. Using pain to correct behavior is not justified. Imagine being trained for a new job by someone using pain as a method. Nothing severe - just a mild electric shock to the ear lobe. I experience pain-correction at my job all the time. What kind of rarified-air are you privileged to?
Many fathers who raised their children with physical punishment as the teaching methodology? If you start using violence as a training methodology when the child is one year old, guess what the child learns and then uses as an adult? Might makes right. "So Dad - now that I have the might I will make the rules." Just as many sons have been grateful for their whippings. Lee posted:
"I experience pain-correction at my job all the time. What kind of rarified-air are you privileged to?"
Oh? What kind of job do you have where your supervisor induces physical pain on your body when you do something incorrectly?
Or are you just switching the goal posts again to a different subject?
Please explain how the pain-correction is induced & by whom & for what reason.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2013 20:02:11 GMT -5
"Intelligent spankings" is sort of like "loving pain". Spankings, almost by definition, are put-downs. It shows domination of the stronger over the weaker. "If I don't like your behavior I can hit you and there is nothing you can do." If the child was a dog it would lay on its back and expose its genitals. First of all, a dog laying on its back has very little to do with exposing its genitals for sexual gratifation and exploitation. Second, it is an aspect of God that he is bigger, which for whatever reason atheists rabidly deny Children learn their behaviors from the adults that raise them. If their behavior is such that you feel they need to be threatened with physical punishment perhaps you should be talking to the adult in the mirror. That may well be the individual that needs the attitude-adjustment. Think about it - who taught your child to behave as s/he does? That can happen. Using pain to correct behavior is not justified. Imagine being trained for a new job by someone using pain as a method. Nothing severe - just a mild electric shock to the ear lobe. I experience pain-correction at my job all the time. What kind of rarified-air are you privileged to? Many fathers who raised their children with physical punishment as the teaching methodology? If you start using violence as a training methodology when the child is one year old, guess what the child learns and then uses as an adult? Might makes right. "So Dad - now that I have the might I will make the rules." Just as many sons have been grateful for their whippings.
lee posted:
"Just as many sons have been grateful for their whippings."
I have heard sons say that also,- usually in an attempt to show how well they beleive that they have turned out as adults or because they are attempting to justify their our spanking of their own children.
Sometimes, they are decent people in spite not because of their spankings.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 9, 2013 20:06:26 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching? If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet? Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Benadryl in the sippy-cup, I always say.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2013 22:36:31 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching? If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet? By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell. Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Are you saying a child/adult isn't capable of evil? Are you saying the human race is free of demonic and evil intention? I'm saying that blaming a child for being evil is cop-out for you to thinking you have to spank a child to "teach" it something!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2013 22:37:22 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching? If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet? By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell. There is no logic at all in your statement. Fortunately we live in an age when physical punishment is no longer used by the legal system. It is difficult to sentence beings to places that cannot be proved exist. Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Are you saying a child/adult isn't capable of evil? Are you saying the human race is free of demonic and evil intention? [/quote]I am. Humans are capable of bad behavior. Evil is simply a creation of people as a counterpoint to the god(s) they created.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2013 22:54:03 GMT -5
"Intelligent spankings" is sort of like "loving pain". Spankings, almost by definition, are put-downs. It shows domination of the stronger over the weaker. "If I don't like your behavior I can hit you and there is nothing you can do." If the child was a dog it would lay on its back and expose its genitals. First of all, a dog laying on its back has very little to do with exposing its genitals for sexual gratifation and exploitation. No one said it had anything to do with sexual gratification or exploitation except you. It is simply a submissive pose displayed by animals.Bigger than what? Who even mentioned god? Can and does. Could you provide an example of how pain is used in your training? I work with adults. They live right next to the women who are grateful for the beatings their husbands administered. People wonder why people develop mental illness. Stopping physical punishment might be a good starting point. pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/06/27/peds.2011-2947
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 3:35:38 GMT -5
Dms remarked below:
Sometimes, they are decent people in spite not because of their spankings.
I provided a link earlier in this thread that showed (according to the research conducted)a link between physical chastisement and better development in children. I am merely pointing this out to show that this is not only a highly controversial subject but also highly complex. Bold statements either way tend to show more bias or opinion than a measured and balanced approach to all the studies, data and experience which have produced a close balance with the results, or at least demand a careful approach to the subject.
Also keep in mind that the great majority of lay people who are against physical chastisement form their views on their perceptions which are largely cases of actual child physical abuse which is illegal anyway.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 10, 2013 3:49:34 GMT -5
When society figures out what constitutes CPA we could take another look at it then Ram.
In the mean time there's much to do, working towards eliminating CSA in the fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 4:03:30 GMT -5
When society figures out what constitutes CPA we could take another look at it then Ram. In the mean time there's much to do, working towards eliminating CSA in the fellowship. You've not been listening fixit. If you are going to have guidelines they have to be commensurate with the law and the law has defined what CPA is. As always, criminal cases are decided on their own individual merits. It is no different with anything else. These days the churches and denominations which really care about their children do not quibble over categories of abuse. They recognise the risk of every form exists and that is enough for them to address all aspects of child abuse. Why are the F&W's so different? What makes them so unique? You are out on a limb with your attitude. In fact I would go as far as to say that it conveys a mindset that is not properly equipped to even begin to deal with the singular issue of CSA. Remember too that in some countries and some states the workers are legally bound to report all categories of child abuse, not just CSA. This means they should be sufficiently aware of all the aspects. They cannot pick and choose a particular abuse to be aware of. That could get them into serious trouble. Best to regard the subject under the umbrella of "child abuse" without being too taken up with categories. Better still, simplify it to "abuse" and embrace all kinds. That would be the most beneficial way of affording protection for everyone who needs it.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 10, 2013 4:25:11 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching? If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet? Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Benadryl in the sippy-cup, I always say. You're right! A nice nap does help with all those pesky demons some days!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 10, 2013 13:49:19 GMT -5
Best to regard the subject under the umbrella of "child abuse" without being too taken up with categories. Better still, simplify it to "abuse" and embrace all kinds. That would be the most beneficial way of affording protection for everyone who needs it. Then why don't you create a website "2x2 Abuse" and go for it Ram?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 10, 2013 13:53:07 GMT -5
Why are the F&W's so different? What makes them so unique? It's a "particularly dangerous cult" according to Irvine Grey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 14:22:15 GMT -5
Best to regard the subject under the umbrella of "child abuse" without being too taken up with categories. Better still, simplify it to "abuse" and embrace all kinds. That would be the most beneficial way of affording protection for everyone who needs it. Then why don't you create a website "2x2 Abuse" and go for it Ram? Quite simply I would be wasting my time. If serving members of the sect are having an uphill battle trying to convince the leadership and the fellowship of the existing problems with CSA and the need to address them then what chance does an exie like me have with the other issues? Best to remain here, make my gums go and get aborted like a bowel movement on steroids!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 14:24:01 GMT -5
Why are the F&W's so different? What makes them so unique? It's a "particularly dangerous cult" according to Irvine Grey. Can you explain what Irvine Grey meant by "a cult and a particularly dangerous one at that," to give it a more precise reference?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 10, 2013 15:08:50 GMT -5
It's a "particularly dangerous cult" according to Irvine Grey. Can you explain what Irvine Grey meant by "a cult and a particularly dangerous one at that," to give it a more precise reference? DD explains it here: www.amazon.com/books/dp/0957539002Note: Grey's description of the 2×2 movement is a bit negative, often quoting disgruntled ex-members, and he concludes that the 2x2s are a "dangerous cult." This he means not in the scholarly nor in the pejorative meaning, but in its Christian meaning, such that it describes nonconformity with traditional Christian beliefs. He uses Bebbington's quadrilateral as a measuring stick. I surely agree with this assessment of nonconformity, even as I find it unhelpful to use a term with such a derogatory connotation as the word "cult." In the 40-some years I was in this movement before leaving it, I found the lifestyle to be encouraging and uplifting, certainly not "dangerous." As a liberal Christian, I tend toward pluralism, so I feel no negativity about differences in belief, and indeed I am profoundly grateful for my upbringing in this wholesome atmosphere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 16:11:40 GMT -5
Can you explain what Irvine Grey meant by "a cult and a particularly dangerous one at that," to give it a more precise reference? DD explains it here: www.amazon.com/books/dp/0957539002Note: Grey's description of the 2×2 movement is a bit negative, often quoting disgruntled ex-members, and he concludes that the 2x2s are a "dangerous cult." This he means not in the scholarly nor in the pejorative meaning, but in its Christian meaning, such that it describes nonconformity with traditional Christian beliefs. He uses Bebbington's quadrilateral as a measuring stick. I surely agree with this assessment of nonconformity, even as I find it unhelpful to use a term with such a derogatory connotation as the word "cult." In the 40-some years I was in this movement before leaving it, I found the lifestyle to be encouraging and uplifting, certainly not "dangerous." As a liberal Christian, I tend toward pluralism, so I feel no negativity about differences in belief, and indeed I am profoundly grateful for my upbringing in this wholesome atmosphere. That's my boy! See what I mean by "context?" Makes a lot of difference, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2013 16:34:51 GMT -5
It seems that the thread CHILD PHYSICAL ABUSE has been hi-jacked!
If you want to talk about the '2by2's as a cult or not- could you just start a different thread?
It is a entire subject by itself.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2013 22:56:42 GMT -5
"By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell." Stop mixing up categories here, lee. The subject is corporal punishment of CHILDREN. Changing the goal posts only shows how one can't back up their argument without resorting to logical fallacies.There is a tendency among the religious and atheist alike to abridge available data in order to advance a polemical criteria by which to determine sheep from goats
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2013 23:08:48 GMT -5
"I experience pain-correction at my job all the time. What kind of rarified-air are you privileged to?" Oh? What kind of job do you have where your supervisor induces physical pain on your body when you do something incorrectly?
Or are you just switching the goal posts again to a different subject?
Please explain how the pain-correction is induced & by whom & for what reason.
Threat of being fired for under-performance at a job where compensation scarcely covers living expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2013 23:13:25 GMT -5
By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell. Are you saying a child/adult isn't capable of evil? Are you saying the human race is free of demonic and evil intention? I'm saying that blaming a child for being evil is cop-out for you to thinking you have to spank a child to "teach" it something!
And children can be taught something through discipline, corporeal and otherwise. By anyones definition, evil stands in contrast to good.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2013 23:25:33 GMT -5
By your logic no one could ever be incarcerated for criminal behavior because arguably, it might become acceptable then to sentence them to hell. There is no logic at all in your statement. Fortunately we live in an age when physical punishment is no longer used by the legal system. Incarceration is physical punishment. Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out! Are you saying a child/adult isn't capable of evil? Are you saying the human race is free of demonic and evil intention? I am. Humans are capable of bad behavior. Evil is simply a creation of people as a counterpoint to the god(s) they created. Why not admit of the spiritual/psychological origin of bad behavior, especially as it usurps a malefactor's volition?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2013 23:40:21 GMT -5
Families who list higher incidents of corporeal punishment and abuse occupy a demographic of person/s who are "life-challenged" so if there are greater occurences of mental illnesses with them it is no surprise. My bottom line thought on the whole matter of corporeal punishment is the presense of love will make or break a family. The benefit of whippings (beltings) are clearly debatable IMO. And the public has a pretty good handle on what abuse is (bruises, welts or greater injury.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2013 0:40:21 GMT -5
I'm saying that blaming a child for being evil is cop-out for you to thinking you have to spank a child to "teach" it something!
And children can be taught something through discipline, corporeal and otherwise. By anyones definition, evil stands in contrast to good. I reiterate, any kind of physical hitting anyone is violence, You believe a couple of "swats" is ok. However, once you have crossed the line of hitting someone, then anyone else can maintain that what they do isn't violence.
a switch to the legs. ok?
a belt to the backside with out a buckle, ok?
a belt with a buckle, ok?
a wooden paddle with holes in it, ok?
You are opening the door to violence when you say just a couple of "swats."
Obviously, you aren't going to pay any attention to children physicians, pediatricians, or anyone else, so the consequences of your actions on your own children be on your own head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 3:33:07 GMT -5
DM opinied:
I reiterate, any kind of physical hitting anyone is violence, You believe a couple of "swats" is ok. However, once you have crossed the line of hitting someone, then anyone else can maintain that what they do isn't violence.
How does your dictionary define "violence?" I appreciate you are presenting your own definition, but you exaggerate certain criteria of physical contact to conveniently fit your opinion. It helps no one. For instance, physical chastisement of children within the limits of the law and with common sense can in my opinion be described as correctly "using" child physical chastisement. "Violence" on the other hand is certainly "abusing" it! Correct measure and control in cases where it is necessary to discipline and control children is the key. That is the line that should not be crossed. Parents who find it necessary to physically chastise their children need to be aware of the distinctions between "use" and "abuse!"
a switch to the legs. ok?
I don't know what a "switch" is? If it is something like a sharp slap then I can accept that.
a belt to the backside with out a buckle, ok?
NO! Use of any instrument, especially a hard one suggests a clear intention to harm, rather than discipline or correct. Use of an instrument would in many cases tend to support a case of abuse. However that does not excuse excessive use of hands,etc.
a belt with a buckle, ok?
Again NO!
a wooden paddle with holes in it, ok?
You can paddle your own canoe with that one!
You are opening the door to violence when you say just a couple of "swats."
Ah, so a couple of "swats" (whatever you mean by that) is NOT "violence!" Maybe we are starting to get somewhere? Yes, for those who find it necessary to physically chastise their children it is very important that they understand the difference between "use" of physical chastisement and the "abuse" of it. Again, I don't like the idea of child physical chastisement, but I am very far from being convinced that it is not necessary with many parents, children and circumstances. Also I see no sense in criminalising many good parents who find themselves in that situation and in many cases the parents (very often single with a small tribe to control)are in dire need of support rather than be turned into criminals and heaped with guilt.
Obviously, you aren't going to pay any attention to children physicians, pediatricians, or anyone else, so the consequences of your actions on your own children be on your own head.
Obviously you are paying attention to those that support your opinion only. There are many counter opinions. The divide is a lot closer than you think and many "anti" opinions are formed on perceptions of recognised abuse. It is not as easy a call as some would like to think! I even provided a link that "proved" the benefits if proper physical chastisement against the non-use of it. Did that report convince me? No it didn't. Nor do any of the many other pro-chastisement arguments out there. The same goes for the many anti- chastisement opinions out there. Call it fence sitting or common sense!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 11, 2013 4:39:11 GMT -5
Hey Ramsey, if you want me to get involved with CPA you'll have to play nicely with me.
Here's how it will be:
Zero tolerance of sex with children and
Zero tolerance of hitting children.
If you want to make exceptions I won't be able to play in the same sandbox with you.
|
|