Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, because it is not the dismissal of the opinion that I would be evaluating when making such a move. But the basis for that opinion. And while you keep retreating, on this thread and so many others, behind the "It is my opinion" narrative....... it is almost entirely NEVER your opinion that I am questioning in the first place. But the claims and statements you make WHILE expressing it.

For example if you merely say "My opinion is that slapping a child is fine, and can be effective and there is nothing wrong with it" Then fine, that is an opinion and you are welcome to it. However when WHILE expressing that opinion you make a statement like "Clearly it doesn't, or we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak." or "The majority of studies are from this source" or "The majority of studies do this....." you are making a direct claim about reality that is patently false. And THAT can be evaluated for the nonsense that it is without anyone whining about opinions and their right to them.

And yet, as you're so fond of reminding other people - just because you label something nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. You haven't been able to demonstrate or establish any any legitimacy for your claims other than suggesting you're a scientist and other people are lay people.

You're undoubtedly acutely aware that on the internet a person can claim whatever they like, it doesn't mean anyone is obliged to take them seriously, and yet you appear to imagine your claims to be a scientist, and your castigating people who have a different opinion to your own, as lay people, somehow lends your arguments any legitimacy.

You've never satisfactorily explained why anyone should consider your opinion more important than their own opinion of their own circumstances, which you aren't in a position to comment on in any scientific capacity. Sure, you have your opinion as a lay person, but it should be obvious to you why that isn't going to carry any weight in the context in which we are speaking.

And that would be a valid claim to make, if in fact you ever stopped to ask for my citations or research. You tend to choose to get personal before (or rather entirely in place of) doing that however. So you have no position at all to evaluate the basis of my views until you actually ask for them. So try it sometime.

What I suspect is in play however is that you WANT to imagine that I form conclusions based on no research and in order to maintain that narrative you can not permit yourself to actually ask for any. Because if I provide it, your narrative crumbles.

But if you want to address a claim I have made, and ask me for the arguments, evidence, data and/or reasons I think I have for making it..... then simply do. And if you feel you asked and I did not answer..... ask again.

But I don't need your citations or your research to draw conclusions about the legitimacy or credibility of your opinion. I still wouldn't dismiss you out of hand as a nut job simply because I don't share your opinion. Your opinion is of no value to me, whereas you appear to think it should be. That's really a problem for you, not me, particularly when you want to claim that smacking is harmful to children. I'm going to evaluate that claim on the basis of my experience and I'm going to dismiss it as nonsense. Whether it is or it isn't objectively nonsense is up to you to prove, and you simply can't prove it definitively without the requisite evidence, which you don't have.

Rather contrary to your earlier assertions that those who are innocent should have to prove their innocence as the way society functions, the reality is rather the opposite - I'm not making any claim, I'm only refuting the claim that smacking is harmful, and you would be aware of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've already pointed out - correlations aren't strong enough to support your claims, and they certainly do not imply causation.

Qualifications do matter. They just do not matter in many of the ways people pretend they do. For example a claim I make does not become more true just because I am qualified to make it. The truth value of the claim is ENTIRELY independent of who or what I am. Which is why I have never, at any point, ever informed you what my qualfiications actually even are. You neither know this, nor would you benefit from knowing.

But knowing that I am capable to speak, especially in areas of epidemiology, statistics, human psychology, the analysis and interpretation of scientific papers and methodology, and so forth should still be informative to you. It should be informative of the level you can speak to me at, which is always important in communication. And it should be informative that you will likely not get away with bluffing, lying, or making things up out of the ether. Which is, alas, what I have had to pull you up on on more than one occasion on this thread alone.

Your opinions are indeed informative of the level at which I should regard your opinions. I don't need to know your qualifications, which is why I was making the point that your claims to be a scientist and other people are lay people is quite perplexing. As I said - you know an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and yet you continue to do it. I'm not going to smack you for it though, I'll just give your posts the regard they deserve. I determine that criteria, not you, so when I dismiss your opinions as nonsense, the fact that you think they aren't, is entirely irrelevant.

Except I have done no such thing and this is just another example of what I have pulled you up on many times before.... which is your practice of saying X has attribute Y without offering a single piece of adhesive to make that label stick. You like to CALL things X Y or Z, but you never follow up in the next sentence / paragraph with an explanation of why it is X Y or Z. You throw the labels, and simply wish hard they will stick.

If you want to actually provide explanation evaluating my capabilities and showing what the evaluation is valid.... by all means try.

I have provided many explanations, many times. The fact that you dismiss my explanations and evaluations as nonsense doesn't mean they weren't provided.

No surprises at all given what I claimed was said, and what you followed up claiming was said, were the same thing. So what your issue is is still entirely unclear to me and, I suspect, to you too.

For example when I said "we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies." and you followed up with "parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers" then there is no real difference there. Yet you have exploded this into some narrative that I have been misrepresentative. Out of completely nothing at all. (no surprises there really).

But unless you want to pedantically equivicate over the difference between "should" and "could" your attempt to suggest I was misrepresenting what was said is as desperate as it is frankly erroneous.

It's not erronous, and you are misrepresenting her opinion. It goes beyond mere pedantry when you're taking their opinion out of context to present an entirely different narrative to their intent in order to dismiss them as a nut job. It was a good thing for me then that I conducted my own research and found that her research is in line with international best practice which actually supports her ideas. I don't agree with what she's doing, and I couldn't ever see myself availing of her services, but I understand why people who aren't me would want to avail of her services - because they have different objectives for their children's outcomes as adults and different objectives for the kind of society they want their children to grow up in and participate in as adults. It's actually not at all different from your earlier suggestions that conversations around sex and sexuality should be an ongoing and open conversation.

I don't disagree with everything you say, and I don't disagree just for the sake of it, but when I do disagree, I'll let you know.

Except I do no such thing. Rather what happens is you tend to get personal when you realize you can not actually rebut the points I have made. That or you ignore entire posts and/or the majority of their content in order to "reset" the discussion on points you now want to avoid. As you have done in this thread.

As for "everyone else has been civil" then if you think a line like "you are probably well versed in dealing with HR for your unacceptable work place behavior." is civil then you either operate under a MASSIVELY different definition of the word to me..... or you basically just see what you want to see, when you want to see it.

As I suggested above, when I disagree with your opinion I'll let you know. I don't have time to waste responding to each and every single point, and more often I simply don't care enough to respond to a lot of your points. Of course that explanation isn't going to suit your narrative, but given that I'm not being paid for my time here, and you're not paying for my time, you're lucky to get what you're getting, which has been an attempt at civil conversation.

Our differences in standards it appears aren't just limited to parenting, it appears we also do indeed have different standards when it comes to how we evaluate civil discussion and conversation. I don't see anything untoward or insulting with your example you've given above. Perhaps if you were to explain why you find it uncivil, I might understand from your perspective why you consider it uncivil. You haven't provided any explanation or context for it so you're really not in any position to criticise other people for not providing context or an explanation for their opinions.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet, as you're so fond of reminding other people - just because you label something nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. You haven't been able to demonstrate or establish any any legitimacy for your claims other than suggesting you're a scientist and other people are lay people.

Which is at this point a complete and outright lie from you because there is nothing I have called nonsense on this thread without then ALSO explaing why it is nonsense. And that is commonly the difference between us when we have any discussions. You stop at calling it "nonsense" and I go further.

The reason it is nonsense is that it simply is not a criteria used anywhere in science, including the social sciences where you falsely claimed the methodologies of science are not transferred, to establish such a dynamic. The claim "If X causes Y we should see the majority doing Y" is simply an assertion you made and have not defended and established as true ANYWHERE. That is what is nonsense.

Let us jump away from the subject of child discipline since it triggers you so much and move to a different one to example this. Bacon was recently classed as a group 1 carcinogen. Which means that we are as certain as certain gets in science that it causes cancer. Now where are the ill informed people jumping up to say "Nonsense, if bacon causes cancer then we would see the majority of bacon eaters with cancer!!!".

Few are doing that because it is a nonsense evaluation. It simply is not true that saying "X causes Y" means the majority will manifest Y. In fact even if ZERO people develop that cancer from a tested population in the next decade, Bacon would likely STILL remain classed a group 1 carcinogen. Because scientists, unlike you, understand "majority" is not required.

The same is true here. The suggestion the use of violence teaches children to use violence as a means of conflict resolution is not a suggest that requires, as you claimed, "we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak.". Your claim is false. Baseless. Unsubstantiated. Nonsense. And I am not, as you so blatantly lie here, merely calling it nonsense to make it nonsense. I am doing what you never do. Explaining exactly WHY it is nonsense.

Try it sometime.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're undoubtedly acutely aware that on the internet a person can claim whatever they like, it doesn't mean anyone is obliged to take them seriously, and yet you appear to imagine your claims to be a scientist, and your castigating people who have a different opinion to your own, as lay people, somehow lends your arguments any legitimacy.

This is, again, an outright lie from you. Made more egregious by the fact to make this lie you have to simply ignore everything I just wrote that you are pretending to reply to. I just explained not just, but exactly WHY, qualifications do not lend arguments legitimacy. But you come right back outright lying that that is what I am doing. For. Shame.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I don't need your citations or your research to draw conclusions about the legitimacy or credibility of your opinion.

Well don't you just love having your cake and eating it too? In one breath you claim I am speaking "on the basis of no research whatsoever" and then when I offer it you turn around and claim you do not need it or want it anyway. Talk about stacking the deck in your imaginary favor.

But like it or not the claim remains false. I do have arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to offer to defend my positions. And you not asking for it, or claiming you do not want or need it, is not evidence I do not have it. It is just evidence you do not care either way whether I have it or not as that gets in the way of you claiming I do not. Which is what you are actually way more interested in doing: Misrepresentation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's really a problem for you, not me, particularly when you want to claim that smacking is harmful to children. I'm going to evaluate that claim on the basis of my experience and I'm going to dismiss it as nonsense.

Which is one of the reasons I label you as "anti science" because this is, essentially, what science is for. To stop personal bias and false extrapolations from personal experience, from getting in the way of us discovering what is actually true. That you admit your anti science and fundamentalism in this way is at least useful, but it remains your problem not mine as you claim.

The problem is peoples personal experience is misleading. Often massively so. And the methodology of science allows us to go past mere personal experience and look at what is actually true. And time and time again the methodology of science has shown claims extrapolated from personal experience to simply be false. The difference then comes between people who dig down on their own falsehoods.......... and those who remain open minded enough to accept as true even that which is abrasive to their personal realities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather contrary to your earlier assertions that those who are innocent should have to prove their innocence as the way society functions, the reality is rather the opposite - I'm not making any claim, I'm only refuting the claim that smacking is harmful, and you would be aware of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've already pointed out - correlations aren't strong enough to support your claims, and they certainly do not imply causation.

Says the one correlating the personal anecdote of one person, themselves, with reality. But I do not think you can shirk the onus of evidence so easily. We live in a society that generally recognizes not just the issue of violence (which is why it is illegal in so many situations) but even more so violence where the perpetrator has power over the victim. So the onus of justification here is not described by this fallacious "the innocent have to prove their innocence" but the exact opposite. Some justification for the use of violence is required. And you do not appear to have it to provide.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

which is why I was making the point that your claims to be a scientist and other people are lay people is quite perplexing.

I can somewhat understand why it might be perplexing to a single individual here and there. Not so much after it has been explained however. So I will merely copy and past the text you appear to have missed and/or contrived to ignore:

"Qualifications do matter. They just do not matter in many of the ways people pretend they do. For example a claim I make does not become more true just because I am qualified to make it. The truth value of the claim is ENTIRELY independent of who or what I am. Which is why I have never, at any point, ever informed you what my qualfiications actually even are. You neither know this, nor would you benefit from knowing.

But knowing that I am capable to speak, especially in areas of epidemiology, statistics, human psychology, the analysis and interpretation of scientific papers and methodology, and so forth should still be informative to you. It should be informative of the level you can speak to me at, which is always important in communication. And it should be informative that you will likely not get away with bluffing, lying, or making things up out of the ether. Which is, alas, what I have had to pull you up on on more than one occasion on this thread alone. "

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I said - you know an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and yet you continue to do it.

Another outright lie. Never did this on the thread. Ever. Let alone continuously. I am not convinced you even know what "argument from authority" even means at this point. But again my points and posts are not nonsense just because you shout that word at them with no substance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have provided many explanations, many times. The fact that you dismiss my explanations and evaluations as nonsense doesn't mean they weren't provided.

You have not provided them though, which is the problem. You have asserted the existence of certain criteria, measurements, and expectations that simply are not used in reality. And when called on them you have done anything BUT provide explanations for them. You have either 1) entirely ignored the content ofthe post that questioned them or 2) merely re-asserted them again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not erronous, and you are misrepresenting her opinion.

Except yes it is, and no I am not. And merely repearing this accusation does not make it more true. AGAIN here is what I said and what you said side by side..........

1) "we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies."
2) "parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers"

................ and they are the SAME THING. How can I be misrepresenting what someone said, if I am saying they said what they in fact did say? Are you even TRYING to make sense at this point? Or do you just like the idea of claiming people are misrepresenting regardless of whether they actually are, because it sounds like you are making an argument?

Nothing I said about it is a misrepresentation. You just disagree with my evaluation of what was said. Which is a different thing entirely.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I suggested above, when I disagree with your opinion I'll let you know.

Great then I will have to assume that everything I said in the post you ignored 90% or more of you are in fact in entire agreement with. Because, by your own claim here, if you did not disagree with it you would have let me know. Which you did not do. Lovely stuff.

But that you see nothing uncivil in suggesting, based on nothing at all, that another person commonly engages in unacceptable workplace behavior, especially to the point HR commonly has to get involved, does indeed show we work on different definitions of what it means to be civil. Because such unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on a persons behavior and character are sure as hell not it.

yourdeadwright

farmerwifelet wrote: »

I think parenting classes should be mandatory - and I don't mean the baby ones when you are expecting more on the lines of triple p parenting.  Just because you can have a child doesn't automatically mean you know how to raise one!

I think it would benefit parents and when they choose their own parenting style then fair enough but some basics would be great for all.

Its the must natural thing in the world and its ok to get wrong every now and again to ,
Show your kids how to be good people its not rocket science , we have been doing it since time began
Mandatory classes is silly,
who teaches them ? how do you know the teacher is a successful parents ,
all kids are different not everything that works for one child works for another ,

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great then I will have to assume that everything I said in the post you ignored 90% or more of you are in fact in entire agreement with. Because, by your own claim here, if you did not disagree with it you would have let me know. Which you did not do. Lovely stuff.

At this point I have to assume you're just taking the proverbial, because when you criticise peoples observations on the basis that you claim they're only seeing what they want to see, and then going on to suggest that science helps us mitigate the introduction of personal bias (in the same post!!), by your own standards - you are an anti-science fundamentalist

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is one of the reasons I label you as "anti science" because this is, essentially, what science is for. To stop personal bias and false extrapolations from personal experience, from getting in the way of us discovering what is actually true. That you admit your anti science and fundamentalism in this way is at least useful, but it remains your problem not mine as you claim.

The problem is peoples personal experience is misleading. Often massively so. And the methodology of science allows us to go past mere personal experience and look at what is actually true. And time and time again the methodology of science has shown claims extrapolated from personal experience to simply be false. The difference then comes between people who dig down on their own falsehoods.......... and those who remain open minded enough to accept as true even that which is abrasive to their personal realities.

That's not me putting words in your mouth or claiming you said something you didn't or any of the rest of it, and no amount of length in your posts is going to distract from what you have just done. Again, I wouldn't slap you for it, but I'll leave you to think about the consequences of your own actions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that you see nothing uncivil in suggesting, based on nothing at all, that another person commonly engages in unacceptable workplace behavior, especially to the point HR commonly has to get involved, does indeed show we work on different definitions of what it means to be civil. Because such unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on a persons behavior and character are sure as hell not it.

Have you asked yourself why someone would assume you commonly engage in unacceptable workplace behaviour? I still don't see what's uncivil about it. If someone were to assume I commonly engaged in unacceptable workplace behaviour, depending upon my relationship to them, I might ask them why they think that. If it's just someone on the internet is making what you feel are unwarranted and unsubstantiated personal attacks on your behaviour and character then I might respectfully suggest that you grow a thicker skin which would prevent you from being so easily triggered by the opinions of anonymous online strangers who really have no input into your life whatsoever.

I dunno does that work for you because we're obviously two very different people, but it sure as hell works for me, and maybe you might try it sometime. In the meantime, I think this discussion has come to the point where I'm no longer interested in continuing to engage with you, and the only reason I'm explicitly telling you that is so you don't go making up your own narratives and accusing me of leaving without any explanation or running away from the discussion. I simply have better things to be doing. It also saves you the time I have no doubt you will take to write another lengthy response, which I will never read, but by all means don't let my lack of interest stop you, it hasn't so far.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At this point I have to assume you're just taking the proverbial, because when you criticise peoples observations on the basis that you claim they're only seeing what they want to see, and then going on to suggest that science helps us mitigate the introduction of personal bias (in the same post!!), by your own standards - you are an anti-science fundamentalist

Well just like the conversation we had about "nonsense" the difference is between declaring people to be doing that, and actually showing they have done that. And just like the discussion of" nonsense", you have opted not to do the latter.

I see nothing logically invalid about the statement I made however, so I am not sure what your point is. You said "If you see X, you will do Y". You did not do Y, so I have to assume you did not see X. Where is the logic fail there?

But yes science very much is in the business of mediating our personal experience and showing it at times to be invalid. And if you think violence against children is not an issue based on an N of 1, then it is worth pointing out that science is better at measuring these things at the level of groups and populations, than some biased interpretation of ones own experiences.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not me putting words in your mouth or claiming you said something you didn't or any of the rest of it, and no amount of length in your posts is going to distract from what you have just done. Again, I wouldn't slap you for it, but I'll leave you to think about the consequences of your own actions.

Unclear what you are talking about here. The text you are quoting from me has NOTHING in it that matchs the reply you just wrote to it. Also I am not sure what the contrived vagueness here is meant to achieve. "what you have just done"? What is that exactly? You are not at all clear here. I fear some of discussion has only occured in your head and no one else, least of all me, is privy to the bits you are now responding to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why someone would assume you commonly engage in unacceptable workplace behaviour?

I do not assume they do think that at all. Rather more likely is they just wanted to throw out some ad hominem invective at a school yard level. I see nothing in the users post AT ALL to validate any assumption he ACTUALLY thinks this. It was just a pointless dig for filler.

And my evaluation of that does not require ANY of the "triggered" or "thinker skin" narratives you have just invented. My evaluation of a behaviour as uncivil does not actually require I be upset by it. It is, I have noticed after 25 years of using the internet in various forms...... seemingly 100% impossible for any stranger to say anything on the internet that in any way upset me. It seemingly can not be done. You are welcome to try, though with due care as you got yourself unfortunately banned for a few days last time you tried and I would not like to see that happen again.

To push the thread back on topic however I would summarize the wholly false claims you have made and not yet substantiated thus far however. Maybe you will later.

1) You think the competency of a psychologist that works with children can be evaluated based on their ending an adult only relationship.
2) You think personal experience of a psychologist will compromise their objectivity or compel them to make it "all about them".
3) You think the claim that violence against children teaches children to use violence somehow means we should expect the majority to be engaged in violence.
4) You have claimed the "majority" of studies and papers on this topic of slapping children A) Share a common trait and come from a single source.
5) You appear to think science is unable to coherently measure outcomes of differing parenting modalities at all.
6) You dismiss the criteria used to even engage in such measurements without A) saying what is wrong with them or suggesting better ones.
7) You suggest that a relationship being terminated is a failure of some sort to put theory into practice as if an ongoing healthy relationship is the only measure of a successful application of such therapies.
8) You claim "the first questions any interviewer would ask when they ask the candidate to tell them a bit about themselves. It's expected that their relationship with their parents and their own family would be a relevant consideration in determining their suitability for employment." without showing that question or expectation is in play AT ALL.

Another thread I wind up unfollowing because the multi-quoting dissertations make trying to contribute pointless.

Shemale

donegaLroad wrote: »

Spare the rod and spoil the child has long thought to be unture.

Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)

Nonsense, do you actually believe people born in 70s and 80s are more aggressive than kids born later?

Shemale

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

There's ways to discipline kids other than physically. Change the WiFi password, remove iPad/phone/Xbox whatever, make it a long time thing, Eg. A week. Longer lasting behavioural correction as opposed to a stinging arse for five minutes.

Maybe iPad/phone/Xbox is the problem, nothing wrong with slapping a kid if its an absolute last resort.

nozzferrahhtoo

Shemale wrote: »

Nonsense, do you actually believe people born in 70s and 80s are more aggressive than kids born later?

It certainly would not be an unfounded belief. But it would come down to how you measure it and what you think explains it.

For example the BBC wrote an article about how children are less likely in the modern world to be the victim of violence. Which would seem to suggest aggression is down. But the BBC did suggest a few other explanations which is that in places like the US the children are also fatter than before and playing more computer games indoors and alone. So many of them are too isolated, and too fat, to be going around experiencing or perpetuating violence.

Psychology Today did write a good article on the subject too. Noting that "our world has never been less violent – except in news media and entertainment." where the media makes us think violence is up, when it is in fact down.

Steven Pinker wrote a book on the subject too called "The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined" which also shows we have a trend over long and short periods of time of declining violence. This is summarized in a talk he makes here, though the entire audio book is also on you tube.

The main issue however is that a statement like "Physically correcting children can lead to violent and aggressive behavior as the child grows older. (among other issues)" could be true even if we say NO change in aggression and violence between the 70s and 80s. Because it is not a factor acting in isolation.

We had the completely nonsense and unsubstanatited claim trotted out in this thread that if violence based discipline techniques led to aggression, we would expect the majority of people to be smacking the heads off each other. This absolutely nonsense claim ignores many aspects of reality and is itself based on nothing in reality.

The reality is that there are MANY factors influencing how much aggression we see in a society. And if one thing reduces it (such as changing how we use violence in child rearing) something else may increase it (such as higher family pressures in terms of stress and financial concerns in a modern world).

So it is hard to pin changes.... or no changes...... onto any one factor in particular. But difficult does not mean impossible and there is a good article here summarizing a chunk of current knowledge and thought on the subject.

Whispered

Would be interested to hear what people think of suggestions that shaming and excluding (as with time out) can cause as much psychological damage as slapping and that in some casses cortisol levels stay elevated for longer. I'm saying suggestion because I cannot remember where I read it.
I'm anti slapping btw but would agree that other forms of punishment can cause similar issues.
Also the efficiency of natural/logical consequences vs enforced consequences.

nozzferrahhtoo

Whispered wrote: »

Would be interested to hear what people think of suggestions that shaming and excluding (as with time out) can cause as much psychological damage as slapping and that in some casses cortisol levels stay elevated for longer. I'm saying suggestion because I cannot remember where I read it.

I have not read so much on it so I remain just open to it at this time. I have read related studies though such as the results of putting excluded people under brain scanning. And it is interesting that social exclusion lights up many of the same parts of our brain that light up during physical pain.

So it is certainly worth following up on with more study and evaluation. But it would be interesting also to see what they mean by "Psychological damage" exactly. For example the link I offered above broke that down with specifics. They broke down "the research on associations between physical punishment and various psychopathology and sociopathy" for example.

As for shame I know even less about that but the message i try to convey through all my approaches to discipline with my own children is that there is no shame at all in doing the wrong thing or doing a bad thing. But there IS shame in continuing to do it, not learning from it, or not acknowledging what you did wrong and why it was wrong.

Very interesting how shame plays a role in the human psyche though. Even to the point of what we do to ourselves. There was a study recently which was designed in such a way that it tested, without the subjects knowing it was what was being tested, honesty.

They found that if you do something as simple as stick a picture of a pair of human eyes on a wall in the test room...... there is a marked increase in the honesty of the subjects. And since the eyes are only a picture..... it has implications for how we view shame and judgement in ourselves rather than from actual other people.

4ensic15

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Graces7

4ensic15 wrote: »

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Reading the article there is rather more to it and more serious than your post shows. Hitting with a cricket bat? Needs investigation. That is extreme and dangerous.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

4ensic15 wrote: »

Instead of telling this brat to tidy bis room, the do-gooders are breaking up a family and making jobs for themselves.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gardai-given-green-light-to-probe-claims-mother-hit-boy-11-with-cricket-bat-for-not-tidying-his-room-843773.html

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

GreeBo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

Smacking DOES NOT EQUAL child abuse.

But since that's already been pointed out multiple times, I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Hector Bellend

Once little Johnny realises that a good crack on the arse is in store, he'll be fine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

GreeBo wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

Smacking DOES NOT EQUAL child abuse.

But since that's already been pointed out multiple times, I'm pretty sure you already know that.

Hitting a child in the head with a cricket bat DOES NOT EQUAL smacking...

Eggs For Dinner

I never hit or smacked my kids, but I disciplined them all the time. They knew what was expected of them and knew the consequences of their actions. No football training, no TV, no sweets, no X Box. Once you explained what was happening and why, "hitting" never became a necessity

artvanderlay

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I would like to propose beatings of the parents

I agree 100%. It's like when a dog sh*ts on a pavement, and it's not picked up. It's not the dogs fault; it's a dog. It's the owners responsiblity and the owner's face should be rubbed in the **** to learn 'em! (and yes I did walk in dog **** today:mad:)

4ensic15

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah... She hit the kid in the head with a cricket bat... Even the people pro-smacking group are going to back away from you there...

If a kid was hit on the head with a cricket bat he wouldn't be able to go squealing to the social services about it. The most he got was a light tap on the head. He is a lazy good for nothing liar. There is an industry being formed out of so-called "vulnerable" children. Little ffers like him know how to game the system. Nobody could survive being hit on the head with a cricket bat.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah right, because with a cricket bat there is only two settings "Tap" and "Fatal". Clearly nothing in between exists.

Yeah no one every survives being hit on the head with a cricket bat. Totally unheard of. Never happens. Ever. Not even once.

machiavellianme

Bitches Be Trypsin wrote: »

There's ways to discipline kids other than physically. Change the WiFi password, remove iPad/phone/Xbox whatever, make it a long time thing, Eg. A week. Longer lasting behavioural correction as opposed to a stinging arse for five minutes.

Sure, because everyone who ever had to endure a torturous week without WiFi because they set fire to their neighbours bin will remember that week forever! Whereas those that got a rap of the wooden spoon will quickly forget why they were disciplined and be back re-offending within the hour and won't be posting on the Internet about it 30 years later. I know which one is likely to make an impression (in more ways than one) and its not the one you think.

4ensic15

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah right, because with a cricket bat there is only two settings "Tap" and "Fatal". Clearly nothing in between exists.

Yeah no one every survives being hit on the head with a cricket bat. Totally unheard of. Never happens. Ever. Not even once.

Obviously, you have never been hit on the head with a cricket bat.

nozzferrahhtoo

Obviously, that does not in any way negate or falsify the point I just made. Or even, lets face it, address it at all.

The reality outside your fantastical assertions however is that impacts on the head with cricket bats is not all that uncommon, and many people die from it, and many people do not. Your assertion that no one ever survives it, or can survive it, is demonstrably false and based on zero substantiation of any kind.

Billy86

4ensic15 wrote: »

Obviously, you have never been hit on the head with a cricket bat.

I have!

Got a nice trip to hospital and concussion out of it and all.

nozzferrahhtoo

And how is it being dead? Given you could not POSSIBLY have survived it? Rigor Mortis make it hard to type?

4ensic15

Billy86 wrote: »

I have!

Got a nice trip to hospital and concussion out of it and all.

Yes, and You weren't able to go and blab to the social services about it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Quite telling that a child being abused, who seeks help for this, is being described as "squealing" and "blabbing" and so forth. The real language of the bullying world that, demeaning the victim when they seek help.

Thankfully more and more I see people simply not getting away with that narrative. Not getting away with victim blaming. Not getting away with the nonsense that a person in need..... be you a child getting abused, or an adult undergoing sexual misconduct, or a man with emotional or mental difficulties.............. reaching out for help is someone or something to be demeaned, insulted, pitied or disrespected.

4ensic15

The politically correct classes insist on allowing every little liar with a whinge, make an attack on family life with their superior smug "I know best" attitude. A liar is a liar.

nozzferrahhtoo

I would agree a liar is indeed a liar, but I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. So the onus would be on you to show the person is, in fact, lying. This you have not done.

Rather you have chosen instead to go with a demonstrably false statement that being hit on the head with a cricket bat is, in every case, fatal..... so as to therefore assume the child to be lying given the child is, clearly, not dead.