Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

One eyed Jack · 14-05-2018 06:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The old adage goes something like "You are welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to your own facts". And while you have your weird and limited and limiting criteria to evaluate the professionalism and competancy of a psychologist..... they differ wildly from the measures actually used in the industry and by people evaluating that industry

Apparently you are though -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think the most we can imply for the existence of consent classes is that our education is failing at some earlier stage. Though not, thankfully, as early as one single nut job recently suggested when he told us that we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies.

Did a Sexuality Educator Say Parents Should Ask Babies’ Permission for Diaper Changes?

WHAT'S TRUE

Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers to teach them "their response matters," noting that it is not actually possible for babies to consent to a diaper change.

WHAT'S FALSE

Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.

And then there's this:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have to say that pretty much every major relationship and discipline issue I have seen or dealt with in a parent-child dynamic has it's roots in the lack of consistency from the parents. And it is interesting how many people I have met or read in parenting.... but also in dog ownership..... and also in management training............ where the person who calls in the help thinks the help is coming in to deal with the child/dog/workers.... but they are actually coming in to train the parent/owner/managers.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

While I personally see no reason why not based on the tiny amount of information the user has actually offered about their situation past and present. Rather than come to a conclusion more due to a rush to deride someones opinion through ad hominem, I would realise we would need a lot more information to understand whether their own situation has ANY bearing on their ability as a psychologist.

Especially, but not solely, given they are a CHILD psychologist and they themselves are no longer a child. As such their own skill set is not even relevant to the reparation of an adult relationship. Their issue with reconciling an adult relationship between adults is not exactly relevant to their career of reparation of relationships involving a child.

So you are actually aware that qualified child psychologists aren't just limited to working with children, and yet you still chose to try and tell me that my criteria for why I would choose not to avail of the services of that particular child psychologist were somehow limited because I said they do not just work with children. I know they don't just work with children, they actually do work with adults too, but that poster wasn't very specific about what they have done with their qualifications.

What you were doing is trying to pass off your opinion as fact, You claim that I tried to deride someone's opinion through an ad hominem when I made it clear that I was saying that I would not avail of their services. There was no ad hominem there, I was stating a fact. I wouldn't avail of their services, and if you imagine that their relationship with their parents wouldn't be a consideration in their suitability as a child psychologist, it's implicit in one of 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.

Irish Guitarist · 14-05-2018 06:50PM

I was born in 1976 and I'm the youngest of six siblings. My parents never raised a hand to any of us.

My father still managed to frighten the shite out of me though.

JupiterKid · 14-05-2018 07:08PM

Every generation gives out about the behaviour of the next. It's been this way for millenia and will continue to be so.

Resorting to hitting a small child IMO is not productive. Yes, disclipline and boundaries of course but there are better ways to discipline children than hitting them.

I'm 43 and got the occasional slap here and there but it was rare. My parents preferred to use positive encouragement or negative consequences (bed with no supper, grounding and no pocket money for the week) as forms of punishment.

A mild slap is ok if used sparingly. Thumping a child or using an object like a leather belt or a rod is abuse.

Creative83 · 14-05-2018 07:11PM

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

tonycascarino · 14-05-2018 07:12PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

A mild slap is ok if used sparingly. Thumping a child or using an object like a leather belt or a rod is abuse.

This is exactly it. Nothing wrong with giving a child a clip when deserved to keep them in check.

eviltwin · 14-05-2018 07:19PM

I'm feeling like super mum, got one child to 21 without ever having to slap them and she hasn't turned into a a-hole.

Pawwed Rig · 14-05-2018 07:20PM

Creative83 wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

Is there? I know that is the case in the US but I have not seen stats for over here.

eviltwin · 14-05-2018 07:30PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Is there? I know that is the case in the US but I have not seen stats for over here.

It's actually incredibly difficult, and expensive, to get any kind of diagnosis. A GP can't give one.

MonkieSocks · 14-05-2018 07:50PM

Creative83 wrote: »

It has been the band wagon here for years...

From 2010... http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17899. I read this as well over 60,000 undisciplined kids, a lot of whom are adults now. A diagnosis of "ADHD" exonerates the parents from bad parenting... that is why they go for it.

From a "comment in that link

Comments

Anonymous - 24/09/2010 15:01
I wonder how many of these children who are diagnosed, have the required tests to for thieir noradrenalin and dopamine levels, function and response?

I don't mean to imply that a diagnosis and treatment is not helpful but at the same time, labelling children as having a condition when they do not is not helpful either.

Very few children were diagnosed as ADHD 20 years ago but there were plently of children who ran around, had great energy levels, jumped, laughed, played, screamed with laughter and were generally letting off steam - but this was considered being a normal child.

Spot on

GreeBo · 15-05-2018 01:00AM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

From a "comment in that link

Spot on

Equally, the occasional, mild slap to correct certain behavior was considered normal parenting.

whisky_galore · 15-05-2018 04:37AM

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2018 05:27AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place, I don't put my child outside the door when they need to go for a piss, and I don't feed them from a bowl on the floor either.

Do you imagine you're able to reason with a dog or something if that's what you appear to be advocating parents should attempt with their children? There are grown adults can't be reasoned with and for those adults yes, we do use force when they appear to ignore reason, the same as we would use force on domesticated animals who are incapable of reason.

GreeBo · 15-05-2018 06:50AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

People wouldn't hit their dog to correct it, it's ok to hit the kid though.

Umm, yes they do?
Again, hitting is not beating or abusing.

Ush1 · 15-05-2018 07:34AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place, I don't put my child outside the door when they need to go for a piss, and I don't feed them from a bowl on the floor either.

Do you imagine you're able to reason with a dog or something if that's what you appear to be advocating parents should attempt with their children? There are grown adults can't be reasoned with and for those adults yes, we do use force when they appear to ignore reason, the same as we would use force on domesticated animals who are incapable of reason.

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

whisky_galore · 15-05-2018 08:01AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

He'd probably give his granny with dementia a smack.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2018 08:17AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apparently you are though - WHAT'S TRUE Sexuality educator Deanne Carson said parents could ask children if it is okay to change their diapers to teach them "their response matters," noting that it is not actually possible for babies to consent to a diaper change. WHAT'S FALSE Carson did not say infants were able to or parents were required to receive consent for diaper changes; Carson did not say infants who refused consent should remain in dirty diapers.

So you twisting what I said into what I did not say means I am making up my own facts? Your desperation is palpable at this point to dodge defending the "facts" You made up, ran away from by ignoring the rebuttals, and are still unable to defend.

Because NOTHING you wrote under "WHATS FALSE" is actually what I wrote. All I wrote was in fact related to the seeking of that consent. Which means that what you wrote under "WHATS TRUE" is in fact EXACTLY what I said.

Bully for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And then there's this: So you are actually aware that qualified child psychologists aren't just limited to working with children, and yet you still chose to try and tell me that my criteria for why I would choose not to avail of the services of that particular child psychologist were somehow limited

Exactly, they are limited for EXACTLY the reasons I described and you verify in the opening of this paragraph. I talked of information you do not have, and you are here listing information you do not have. Thanks for making my point for me. You do not know this individual or what their practice is, or is not, limited to.

What you ARE doing however is evaluating their ability to mediate a child-adult relationship based on your evaluation of their adult-adult relationship. Which is a nonsense criteria for evaluation from the outset.

What compounds your nonsense however is that you are also evaluating their ability by a nonsense criteria of outcomes too by pretending that the cessation of a relationship is somehow a failure or an indication they did not put theory into practice, or whatever other nonsense you are peddaling off the back of that evaluation today. The fact remains that this is NOT a criteria used in the industry where, in fact, the cessation or termination of a relationship can by a valid and successful outcome of the process. Because quite often that turns out to be the right thing to do.

You further compound all that nonsense again then by suggesting that someone bringing their own personal experience into such situations as a psychologist is automatically a bad thing. Never mind the point you have no idea that the individual in question IS actually, or has ever actually, done that in their professional practice.......... it simply is not a bad thing automatically, nor does it mean the psychologist is, or is at risk of, "making it all about themselves" as you claimed.

So you are basically making up and inventing a STRING of criteria for measurement and evaluation that are themselves patent nonsense. And when unable to defend any of these things you merely retreat back to your usual "It is just my opinion" narrative.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you were doing is trying to pass off your opinion as fact, You claim that I tried to deride someone's opinion through an ad hominem when I made it clear that I was saying that I would not avail of their services. There was no ad hominem there, I was stating a fact. I wouldn't avail of their services, and if you imagine that their relationship with their parents wouldn't be a consideration in their suitability as a child psychologist

The only imagination in play is yours that such a consideration is warranted. Without the application of a large dose of assumption, something you are quite prone to, their relationship with their parents in no way informs us about their ability or suitability as a child psychologist. It simply does not, so the only one actually "passing opinions off as fact" here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's implicit in one of 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.

More opinion and imagination being passed off as fact from you here too then. You are merely inventing/asserting any interviewer would ask this question at all. And you are merely inventing/asserting what their expectations in the answer would be and would be relevant to. So not only are you making up these criteria in the first place...... you are now making up people who use those criteria in your fantasy world.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People wouldn't usually equate children with dogs in the first place

Lucky no one here is actually doing that then isn't it? Saying I would not do X to Y and I would not do Y to Z is not to equate Y and Z. It is to equate ones own responses to both Y and Z, which is a very different thing. And is in fact a difference I recall having to explain to you in the past.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2018 08:17AM

GreeBo wrote: »

We generally acknowledge that manipulating people, especially children, with psychological and social pressures is wrong.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge. Rather what I think is that many conversations and interactions we have with other people are a form of manipulation. The word "manipulation" just has negative connotations like the word "agenda". Whether manipulation is wrong or not comes not from it BEING manipulation, but from the form it takes and the goal it has.

GreeBo wrote: »

So you are a sexist now are you Father?

Nice non-response there. There is nothing sexist about a single thing I wrote. Keep churning the feux offense mill though if it helps you dodge points. The point you are dodging, again, however is that how we view violence committed by one person on another tends to become more visceral if there is a power advantage in play between the source and the target. I gave one example of this and it triggered you, but there are many more. And it is not just violence we have that reaction in. We also have it in, say, sex. Where if there is an uneven power dynamic between two people having sex people treat it with more suspicion and judgement.

GreeBo wrote: »

See my first post. Manipulating a child to do what you want by using psychological and social pressures is pretty abhorrent to me. You see ok with it.

Again what I am "ok with" is the idea that we manipulate each other all the time. And I am "ok with" exploring the fact that "manipulation" is not one catch all term that creates an equivalence between everything you decide to throw into that net. I do not think the correct approach to such social and human relationships is to screech "manipulation" at everything and run away. Rather to break it down into chunks we can explore and evaluate the efficacy and effects of and classify some as being the most conducive to the current and future well being of all concerned.

GreeBo wrote: »

You are still failing to convince me how denying a child Wifi or sweets is NOT enforcing conformity but a simple slap is.

Again the difference lies in taking away all choice, and escalating to the point where conformity is the only option open........... and giving people their own choices but ensuring they recognize that will all choices comes consequences and some people might accept you taking those consequences but have no moral compunction to assist you in compounding them. Compelling a choice through consequences and offering choices while making consequences clear.... are two different things entirely.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd argue that what you are trying to instill over time actually diminishes over that same time to the point where the child is flat out confused as to why they are being punished.

Which would simply be a communication failure on your part, and not the fault of the child OR the approach used. If you can not implement such a system while also communicating well and ensuring everyone involved understands what is going on.... then there is no one to blame in that dynamic but yourself.

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, I love the way you sneak in "perhaps even through escalation" into your post. Is there any chance you can accept that NO ONE on here is advocating abusing or beating a child (or anyone for that matter)

I can accept that no one here is advocating or intending that sure. But that does not mean it does not happen. ANY discipline approach involves some risk..... some more than others...... that it will stop working and so it must be escalated in order to have the same effect as before. Certainly violence used on a three year old might be enough to get their attention at the time, but will be something that would be laughed off by a 10 year old. So there is little reason not to expect the level and quantity of violence used needs to escalate over time.

The question then, for many parents given parents vary in size physique and power....... what happens when the child reaches a point that the parent is unable to apply enough violence any more......... or worse the child reaches a point they can defend themselves or in fact retaliate. How effective is the violence based approach going to be at that point? Or could it even back fire given said parent has been teaching the child that violence is a valid and viable approach to conflict resolution?

GreeBo wrote: »

Flinging labels huh? Such as "lazy parenting"?

It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect.

If you feel I have used a label incorrectly then by all means question it. But this is certainly not equivilant to you merely shouting "pathetic" in the hope that calling it that, will make it that. It does not. At all. Even a little.

The label "Lazy Parenting" I can defend in many contexts however. I think, for example, incident based parenting is lazy parenting. Such as the example I gave of "The talk" in sexual education. That is lazy parenting. Not going near a subject until you have to, and then trying to get it all done in one single "the Talk". Using violence to obtain conformity in a given moment, without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline and behavior would also be, where it occurs, lazy parenting.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything, the employee at work was my own example. The argument has been made that since you wouldnt control a co-worker through a slap, then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong.

The argument being made is subtly different to that one. So you are indeed twisting it. From what it is, to what you want it to be. The argument ACTUALLY being made is that if violence is generally frowned upon, and is generally not used in conflict resolution, and is often illegal, and is generally viewed even worse if there is an uneven power dynamic in play......... then considering all that we are not saying "then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong" but we are in fact saying "then slapping a child is something that requires coherent justification in that light".

then slapping a child is somehow logically wrongAh, so you admit that you bullied him into doing what you wanted him to do. Bullying takes many forms, violence being just one.[/QUOTE]

Given the length of my posts I clearly have enough words of my own in my mouth without you shoving your own in there too. This is entirely and completely not what I said at all. Not even remotely similar in fact. And posting petty little images to defend ad hominem does not actually defend ad hominem.

seamus · 15-05-2018 08:55AM

Creative83 wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about this...

You have plenty of parents bringing their kids to doctors these days to get a diagnosis for "ADHD".... It's all bull**** of course, just parents who can't control their kids... being unable to give them a smack every now and again if they do wrong may be a very big part of this phenomenon.

So when did you qualify as a doctor, doctor?

You are qualified to declare ADHD to be "bull****", right?

GreeBo · 15-05-2018 09:26AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge. Rather what I think is that many conversations and interactions we have with other people are a form of manipulation. The word "manipulation" just has negative connotations like the word "agenda". Whether manipulation is wrong or not comes not from it BEING manipulation, but from the form it takes and the goal it has.

Just like the negative connotations you have for negative reinforcements such as a slap?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice non-response there. There is nothing sexist about a single thing I wrote. Keep churning the feux offense mill though if it helps you dodge points. The point you are dodging, again, however is that how we view violence committed by one person on another tends to become more visceral if there is a power advantage in play between the source and the target. I gave one example of this and it triggered you, but there are many more. And it is not just violence we have that reaction in.

Well you think differently about the same event based on whether the people involved are male or female. I'd call that sexist, since yunno, you are discriminating based on sex.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We also have it in, say, sex. Where if there is an uneven power dynamic between two people having sex people treat it with more suspicion and judgement.

Sorry, who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge.
I dont judge sex as suspicious just based on the people involved.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again what I am "ok with" is the idea that we manipulate each other all the time. And I am "ok with" exploring the fact that "manipulation" is not one catch all term that creates an equivalence between everything you decide to throw into that net. I do not think the correct approach to such social and human relationships is to screech "manipulation" at everything and run away. Rather to break it down into chunks we can explore and evaluate the efficacy and effects of and classify some as being the most conducive to the current and future well being of all concerned.

We also slapped children "all the time", in fact for thousands of years, but you suddenly think we have been wrong all along. Are you so conceited that you 100% believe there is no chance that "we" will look back on your manipulation of children in a negative manner?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the difference lies in taking away all choice, and escalating to the point where conformity is the only option open........... and giving people their own choices but ensuring they recognize that will all choices comes consequences and some people might accept you taking those consequences but have no moral compunction to assist you in compounding them. Compelling a choice through consequences and offering choices while making consequences clear.... are two different things entirely.

Again, thats neither a difference nor a distinction.
How is conformity the only option? A child can choose to accept the slap just as they can choose to live without whatever it is you are withholding to manipulate them.
Unless of course you are again implying that people are escalating their physical punishment to the point of abuse because its the only thing that suits your point?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which would simply be a communication failure on your part, and not the fault of the child OR the approach used. If you can not implement such a system while also communicating well and ensuring everyone involved understands what is going on.... then there is no one to blame in that dynamic but yourself.

Thats assuming a child has the same comprehension levels as the adult who is attempting to communicate with them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can accept that no one here is advocating or intending that sure. But that does not mean it does not happen. ANY discipline approach involves some risk..... some more than others...... that it will stop working and so it must be escalated in order to have the same effect as before.

If you can accept it then please stop hiding behind it and bringing it up.
There are parents who bully their children in emotional ways, does that invalidate your approach?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Certainly violence used on a three year old might be enough to get their attention at the time, but will be something that would be laughed off by a 10 year old. So there is little reason not to expect the level and quantity of violence used needs to escalate over time.

Thats not a valid argument. The social manipulation you use with a 3 year old would also be laughed off by a 10 year old.
Age appropriateness is required, whatever the approach so you cant use that in any logical way to play one system off against another.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question then, for many parents given parents vary in size physique and power....... what happens when the child reaches a point that the parent is unable to apply enough violence any more......... or worse the child reaches a point they can defend themselves or in fact retaliate. How effective is the violence based approach going to be at that point? Or could it even back fire given said parent has been teaching the child that violence is a valid and viable approach to conflict resolution?

Why do you assume that controlling the behaviour will be an ongoing thing as the child reaches adolescence only if you use slapping when the child is young?
What happens in your approach when the child reaches a point (lets say 16) and you are unable to manipulate them by taking away their WiFi or their sweeties? Could it then be that the child, for example, locks you out of the WiFi?

Your arguments are SO rose-tinted its laughable. Many similar problems exist whatever the approach, yet you steadfastly ignore *the exact same problem* when it comes to your approach.

Parenting isnt a simple case of "follow these rules and all will be well".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect.

If you feel I have used a label incorrectly then by all means question it. But this is certainly not equivilant to you merely shouting "pathetic" in the hope that calling it that, will make it that. It does not. At all. Even a little.

The label "Lazy Parenting" I can defend in many contexts however. I think, for example, incident based parenting is lazy parenting. Such as the example I gave of "The talk" in sexual education. That is lazy parenting. Not going near a subject until you have to, and then trying to get it all done in one single "the Talk". Using violence to obtain conformity in a given moment, without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline and behavior would also be, where it occurs, lazy parenting.

Labels such as "slapping is lazy parenting"?
Your "arguments" to support this all assume a parent giving a child a random wallop without any explanation, yet that is not what anyone on the other side is advocating at all.

As with all things, various approaches are required, there is nothing wrong with parenting a specific incident, unless you are advocating that a parent thinks up every possible scenario and explains the consequences to the child up front; a-la Sheldons Roommate agreement?

You *Still* trot out ideas implying that a parent gives a slap and nothing else, despite being corrected multiple times. A slap can form *part of* the way a parent controls their childs behaviour. Where does anyone mention "without putting any effort into an entire narrative of discipline" other than yourself? This is the very definition of Strawman Arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The argument being made is subtly different to that one. So you are indeed twisting it. From what it is, to what you want it to be. The argument ACTUALLY being made is that if violence is generally frowned upon, and is generally not used in conflict resolution, and is often illegal, and is generally viewed even worse if there is an uneven power dynamic in play......... then considering all that we are not saying "then slapping a child is somehow logically wrong" but we are in fact saying "then slapping a child is something that requires coherent justification in that light".

But your psychological control (a.k.a. bullying) is not generally frowned about when their is an uneven power dynamic?

If you honestly think that you can equate interactions between adults with interactions between a child and a parent then I think we are done with this conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And posting petty little images to defend ad hominem does not actually defend ad hominem.

Moral high ground...lost.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Bully for you.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2018 11:00AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you twisting what I said into what I did not say means I am making up my own facts? Your desperation is palpable at this point to dodge defending the "facts" You made up, ran away from by ignoring the rebuttals, and are still unable to defend.

Because NOTHING you wrote under "WHATS FALSE" is actually what I wrote. All I wrote was in fact related to the seeking of that consent. Which means that what you wrote under "WHATS TRUE" is in fact EXACTLY what I said.

Bully for you.

Exactly, they are limited for EXACTLY the reasons I described and you verify in the opening of this paragraph. I talked of information you do not have, and you are here listing information you do not have. Thanks for making my point for me. You do not know this individual or what their practice is, or is not, limited to.

What you ARE doing however is evaluating their ability to mediate a child-adult relationship based on your evaluation of their adult-adult relationship. Which is a nonsense criteria for evaluation from the outset.

What compounds your nonsense however is that you are also evaluating their ability by a nonsense criteria of outcomes too by pretending that the cessation of a relationship is somehow a failure or an indication they did not put theory into practice, or whatever other nonsense you are peddaling off the back of that evaluation today. The fact remains that this is NOT a criteria used in the industry where, in fact, the cessation or termination of a relationship can by a valid and successful outcome of the process. Because quite often that turns out to be the right thing to do.

You further compound all that nonsense again then by suggesting that someone bringing their own personal experience into such situations as a psychologist is automatically a bad thing. Never mind the point you have no idea that the individual in question IS actually, or has ever actually, done that in their professional practice.......... it simply is not a bad thing automatically, nor does it mean the psychologist is, or is at risk of, "making it all about themselves" as you claimed.

So you are basically making up and inventing a STRING of criteria for measurement and evaluation that are themselves patent nonsense. And when unable to defend any of these things you merely retreat back to your usual "It is just my opinion" narrative.

The only imagination in play is yours that such a consideration is warranted. Without the application of a large dose of assumption, something you are quite prone to, their relationship with their parents in no way informs us about their ability or suitability as a child psychologist. It simply does not, so the only one actually "passing opinions off as fact" here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And you.

More opinion and imagination being passed off as fact from you here too then. You are merely inventing/asserting any interviewer would ask this question at all. And you are merely inventing/asserting what their expectations in the answer would be and would be relevant to. So not only are you making up these criteria in the first place...... you are now making up people who use those criteria in your fantasy world.

Lucky no one here is actually doing that then isn't it? Saying I would not do X to Y and I would not do Y to Z is not to equate Y and Z. It is to equate ones own responses to both Y and Z, which is a very different thing. And is in fact a difference I recall having to explain to you in the past.

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

Y'know for someone who claims to be a scientist of some sort, I can also question your credibility as a scientist on the basis that you appear to form your conclusions about other people on the basis of no research whatsoever. You also know that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't know why you keep pointing out that you have some scientific qualification as though that should actually matter to anyone, let alone lend your arguments any credibility. In fact it detracts from your credibility because you're consistently demonstrating that you're not a very capable scientist.

That's not an ad hominem either btw, nor is it meant to be insulting, it's an evaluation of your capacity as a scientist based on my criteria when you opened the door in the first place by claiming to be a scientist, in much the same way as that poster claimed to be qualified as a child psychologist giving their opinion on parenting based upon their experiences.

You're really not any more qualified to evaluate anyone's parenting than the sexual educator you dismissed as a nut job because you ran with a particular narrative which had no basis in reality. If you had done your research, you would have found that what she actually said was more nuanced than what you had claimed she said (no surprises there really), and why she actually taught the idea to parents, and the expected outcomes of the training. She's actually quite the opposite of your initial dismissal of her as a nut job, but I can understand why the fact that she has more knowledge and experience on the subject than you do would grate on you to some degree. As I have observed before, you tend to go straight for the jugular when you disagree with someone, as you have done throughout this thread, when everyone else has been civil.

One eyed Jack · 15-05-2018 11:13AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Would you smack an adult with special needs, they may have the intellectual capacity of a child for instance?

I've consistently said it would depend upon the circumstances. I wouldn't smack an adult with special needs any more than I would smack a child, or a child with special needs, regardless of their intellectual capacity.

Special needs btw isn't limited to intellectual capacity, but I understood what you meant for the sake of argument. A person with mobility issues also has special needs, their intellectual capacity wouldn't necessarily be an immediate consideration in determining the assistance they require.

I dunno how it works for you, but I tend to treat people differently from each other, because I don't view us as all being carbon copies of each other, but rather we are individuals.

Tekano tim · 15-05-2018 11:23AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

I feel like this career was not mentioned when I was in school?

dublinbuster · 15-05-2018 11:45AM

seamus wrote: »

So when did you qualify as a doctor, doctor?

You are qualified to declare ADHD to be "bull****", right?

it is bull****!
we live i PC times, doctors cant tell a parent they are not doing the job of raising a child properly, so they diagnose ADHD.
ADHD did not exist until a few years ago, either we as a species are evolving at a increased rate or its PC bull****, you decide.

seamus · 15-05-2018 12:05PM

dublinbuster wrote: »

it is bull****!
we live i PC times, doctors cant tell a parent they are not doing the job of raising a child properly, so they diagnose ADHD.
ADHD did not exist until a few years ago, either we as a species are evolving at a increased rate or its PC bull****, you decide.

Here's a list of some other things that "didn't exist" until a few years ago:

Dyslexia - 1881
Autism - 1938
Dyspraxia - 1937
Dyscalculia - 1974

I suppose this is all "PC bull****" too, just some doctors too afraid to tell parents that they're making a balls of it?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2018 12:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you can dismiss the opinion of a sexual educator as a nut job, off the back of one single comment, yet I can't do exactly the same thing and dismiss the opinion of someone claiming to be a child psychologist giving their opinion on the outcomes of a form of discipline when they, much like yourself, have no idea of what I'm like as a parent?

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know for someone who claims to be a scientist of some sort, I can also question your credibility as a scientist on the basis that you appear to form your conclusions about other people on the basis of no research whatsoever.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You also know that an argument from authority is a logical fallacy, so I don't know why you keep pointing out that you have some scientific qualification as though that should actually matter to anyone

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: »

In fact it detracts from your credibility because you're consistently demonstrating that you're not a very capable scientist.

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you had done your research, you would have found that what she actually said was more nuanced than what you had claimed she said (no surprises there really)

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I have observed before, you tend to go straight for the jugular when you disagree with someone, as you ave done throughout this thread, when everyone else has been civil.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2018 12:16PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Just like the negative connotations you have for negative reinforcements such as a slap?

Well no, not like that at all. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a word implying negative connotations that are not actually there, and an event or action actually having negative connotations in reality. The point I am making is that words like "manipulation" and "agenda" are often used as if they automatically mean something negative. And it is simply not so that they do. There is nothing wrong with manipulating others, it depends how and why you go about doing it.... and what the ultimate effects of doing it are....... that defines whether it is negative or not.

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you think differently about the same event based on whether the people involved are male or female. I'd call that sexist, since yunno, you are discriminating based on sex.

Nope. I think differently about the same event based on whether there is a difference in power between the people involved. And the fact the average male is more physically powerful than the average female is a reason why that is very often an example of this. You seem to be operating under a much different definition of "sexist" than I am. But in your rush to use that term you are bypassing the actual point. Which is that whatever our view of violence is, we tend to view it even dimmer when the perpetrator has power advantages over the recipient.

And my point from that is that one of the greatest disparities in such a power dynamic would be between grown adults, and children. So if we are going to implement violence based approaches to interacting with children, we would want to have some level of justification for doing so. Justification I have yet to see any of so far on this thread.

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, who is this "we" you are talking about? That is certainly nothing something I, or anyone I know, acknowledge.
I dont judge sex as suspicious just based on the people involved.

We as in society. For example there is a common level of social stigma involved in sexual relationships between siblings, teachers and their students, doctors and their patients, army officers and their underlings and so forth. Where one person is seen to have power or authority over the others, there is concern as to the morality and ethics involved in having a sexual relationship between them because of this. Even when they are consenting adults.

GreeBo wrote: »

We also slapped children "all the time", in fact for thousands of years, but you suddenly think we have been wrong all along. Are you so conceited that you 100% believe there is no chance that "we" will look back on your manipulation of children in a negative manner?

You are talking in absolutes that are not present in the material you are replying to. I do not care about what people look back on in the future. Nor so I care all that much about what we did in the past either to be honest. My focus is only on what arguments, evidence, data and reasoning do we have NOW to ask the question about what actions we can best justify using going forward.

If people in the future look back on us with derision for our choices, I can only assume they will be doing so because they have access to data and reasoning we did not have access to when we made them. As such they are welcome to their derision, but it will be unjustified so long as we can claim to be making the best decisions NOW based on the data we have NOW.

I certainly would not look at "Well we did it for thousands of years" as useful arguments for.... well.... anything really. The question still remains, should we be doing it NOW.

GreeBo wrote: »

Again, thats neither a difference nor a distinction.

It really is. The distinction being that enforcing conformity in the moment removes all choice, while the other dynamic does not. It is a massive change in the dynamic of the actual event in the moment, and how that event can play out and resolve itself. And it is a massive change in what is being taught in that moment too in terms of teaching choices have consequences compared with not doing what I want them to do has consequences.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats assuming a child has the same comprehension levels as the adult who is attempting to communicate with them.

Nope. That assumption is not at all present in, or required for, what I just wrote. You can assume that all you like of course, but I certainly did not and am not required to. The ability to communicate does not require "the same comprehension level" at all. It requires that the person at the higher comprehension level be capable of, and willing to, parse their communication down to the other.

GreeBo wrote: »

If you can accept it then please stop hiding behind it and bringing it up.

I did not hide behind anything of the sort though. You are inventing things I did not say, and then accusing me of hiding behind them. You might as well be accusing fish of hiding behind the water they swim in for all the sense you are making.

GreeBo wrote: »

There are parents who bully their children in emotional ways, does that invalidate your approach?

If escalation is required in a given approach, and that escalation reaches a level where it crosses a line into abuse, then that is a problem yes. So as I keep saying each approach has to be evaluated for that potential, and compared on that basis. Even if 100% of all approaches requires escalation at some point, that does not make them all the same. They will differ in the levels it is required.

The violence based approach almost by definition requires escalation because as children grow and strengthen the level of violence required in the past will no longer be enough in the present. There is much less in many other suggested approaches that suggests such escalation is so close to being default, if even required at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats not a valid argument. The social manipulation you use with a 3 year old would also be laughed off by a 10 year old.

I do not think that is true at all. You are asserting it without any reason you think it is true. When I spoke of the same thing with violence, I at least explained WHY I think it was so. Which is that a growing child is going to be stronger and have a higher pain tolerance. That at least explains why escalation of the violence may be required. You are not offering a similar explanation for your assertion. For example the removal of a privilege like television access, or access to pleasurable snack foods, can be implemented in an identical fashion on both.

But again like a few other attempts before, including calling it all "manipulation" I do not think finding a common trait between these things automatically makes them equivalent. Even if every approach (which I doubt, but imagine it for the purposes of argument) requires escalation...... there can be massive differences in such requirements between them. If one approach needs a lot of it, and another needs very little of it, then merely classing them both as requiring it will not be informative or useful at all.

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you assume that controlling the behaviour will be an ongoing thing as the child reaches adolescence only if you use slapping when the child is young?

Again no such assumption is required for what I am saying. For any given child we do not know when discipline will be required. You might NEVER need it. You might need it daily for every day of the childs life. Or anything in between on that continuum anywhere at all. The question remains whether on any point of that continuum whether a given approach required escalation, if so by how much, and if so can it reach a point where the power dynamic can switch. Certainly a lot of parents will find a point where their child can not only defend themselves but often fight back. And win. What then?

GreeBo wrote: »

Your arguments are SO rose-tinted its laughable. Many similar problems exist whatever the approach, yet you steadfastly ignore *the exact same problem* when it comes to your approach.

Except I have ignored no such thing. What I have been discussing, when you have not both been putting words in and taking words out of my mouth, is that it does not matter if the "exact same problems" exist from approach to approach. Because no one is claiming any approach makes every problem go away. What IS being claimed is that we can, and should, evaluate each problem type and work out which are the best approaches on each merit.

You keep talking in absolutes that are not present in anything I have said, and then acting like those absolutes are a problem in things I have espoused. Which is a truly odd approach to conversation.

GreeBo wrote: »

Parenting isnt a simple case of "follow these rules and all will be well".

Great. Now if you could just find someone who has been claiming or pretending it is..... I am sure they would benefit from hearing this information. Why you bring it up with me however is anyones guess including, I suspect, your own.

GreeBo wrote: »

Labels such as "slapping is lazy parenting"?

You do not appear to have read what you replied to so I will merely copy and paste it for you again:

"It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect."

And again, I did not just call anything lazy parenting, I explained exactly WHY I think it is so when I have in fact called it that.

GreeBo wrote: »

Your "arguments" to support this all assume a parent giving a child a random wallop without any explanation, yet that is not what anyone on the other side is advocating at all.

The list of assumptions you have invented and merely pretended are inherent in anything I have said is getting rather long at this point. I am wondering if at this point it might be a more honest and mature approach to actually ask me what my assumptions behind any given claim are, rather than telling me what you think they are?

GreeBo wrote: »

But your psychological control (a.k.a. bullying) is not generally frowned about when their is an uneven power dynamic?

It would, as I keep telling you, entirely depend on how it is implemented, why, and to what effect. Inflicting violence on someone who can not defend themselves in any way is not really comparable with giving a person a choice, accepting when that choice is made, and then making choices of your own. And I do not really buy the "Well the child has the choice not to get slapped" narrative really.......... it strikes me as nonsensical in the same way as a mugger saying "Well I am giving you the choice not to get stabbed with this knife".

GreeBo wrote: »

If you honestly think that you can equate interactions between adults with interactions between a child and a parent then I think we are done with this conversation.

Well of course you can. Unless the issue is purely linguistic. The word "equate" can mean entirely equal. But a lot of people use it to mean "compare" or "comparable" too. It is rather a flexible word. So rather than risk a mere miscommunication I think I will avoid that word. What I do believe is that ALL human interactions share many commonalities, trends, factors and attributes. And depending on the contexts and goals, varying degrees of comparisons can be drawn between them and operated upon.

And the comparison I was drawing upon between discussing child discipline and the interaction example from the work place is that very often we afford people their rights AND their privileges. And we go out of our way sometimes in ways we do not have to do to afford them the latter. And so it is a perfectly valid approach, with both children and with adults, to remove one of those things if a situation suggests it is warranted. And if a person, child or coworker adult, is acting in an unethical or immoral fashion..... it is perfectly warranted to say "Fine, that is your choice, but I feel not at all compelled to invest my time and resources in affording you privileges that were never your right to begin with.... especially if you are insist on using what I give you to harm yourself or others".

Despite pouring mere derision on this, you have not actually stopped to explain what any actual issue with it may be.

GreeBo wrote: »

Moral high ground...lost.

Not at all, though you will forgive me if I do not take your evaluation seriously when you are pretending I have lost something you were pretending I never had in the first place. Hardly a transition really. But if you can not tell the difference between a statement like that, and outright insults like suggesting I have issues with unacceptable work place behavior then your linguistic issues are deeper than I have been accounting for. You have to HAVE a moral ground to presume to judge that of others. So perhaps clean up your own house before you run a dust checking finger of the side boards in anyone elses.

dublinbuster · 15-05-2018 12:23PM

seamus wrote: »

Here's a list of some other things that "didn't exist" until a few years ago:

Dyslexia - 1881
Autism - 1938
Dyspraxia - 1937
Dyscalculia - 1974

I suppose this is all "PC bull****" too, just some doctors too afraid to tell parents that they're making a balls of it?

PC bull**** is very much real.
a 10 year old child is not responsible enough to decide which time they can go to bed at.
A 10 year old child can decide its trapped in the wrong body and consent to be pumped with drugs/hormones to change gender
PC bull**** in full effect.

ADHD is another example of PC bull****
The Doctor thinks internally
"your child is a brat, sort it out and stop wasting my time"
But cant say if due to PC, so its ADHD, Doctor smiles and think "get the fcuk out of my office"

seamus · 15-05-2018 12:52PM

dublinbuster wrote: »

PC bull**** is very much real.
a 10 year old child is not responsible enough to decide which time they can go to bed at.
A 10 year old child can decide its trapped in the wrong body and consent to be pumped with drugs/hormones to change gender
PC bull**** in full effect.

ADHD is another example of PC bull****
The Doctor thinks internally
"your child is a brat, sort it out and stop wasting my time"
But cant say if due to PC, so its ADHD, Doctor smiles and think "get the fcuk out of my office"

That didn't answer my question.

So when did you get your qualification, and what particular branch of medicine are you in?

GreeBo · 15-05-2018 01:19PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well no, not like that at all. There is a difference, quite a large one, between a word implying negative connotations that are not actually there, and an event or action actually having negative connotations in reality. The point I am making is that words like "manipulation" and "agenda" are often used as if they automatically mean something negative. And it is simply not so that they do. There is nothing wrong with manipulating others, it depends how and why you go about doing it.... and what the ultimate effects of doing it are....... that defines whether it is negative or not.

Nope. I think differently about the same event based on whether there is a difference in power between the people involved. And the fact the average male is more physically powerful than the average female is a reason why that is very often an example of this. You seem to be operating under a much different definition of "sexist" than I am. But in your rush to use that term you are bypassing the actual point. Which is that whatever our view of violence is, we tend to view it even dimmer when the perpetrator has power advantages over the recipient.

And my point from that is that one of the greatest disparities in such a power dynamic would be between grown adults, and children. So if we are going to implement violence based approaches to interacting with children, we would want to have some level of justification for doing so. Justification I have yet to see any of so far on this thread.

We as in society. For example there is a common level of social stigma involved in sexual relationships between siblings, teachers and their students, doctors and their patients, army officers and their underlings and so forth. Where one person is seen to have power or authority over the others, there is concern as to the morality and ethics involved in having a sexual relationship between them because of this. Even when they are consenting adults.

You are talking in absolutes that are not present in the material you are replying to. I do not care about what people look back on in the future. Nor so I care all that much about what we did in the past either to be honest. My focus is only on what arguments, evidence, data and reasoning do we have NOW to ask the question about what actions we can best justify using going forward.

If people in the future look back on us with derision for our choices, I can only assume they will be doing so because they have access to data and reasoning we did not have access to when we made them. As such they are welcome to their derision, but it will be unjustified so long as we can claim to be making the best decisions NOW based on the data we have NOW.

I certainly would not look at "Well we did it for thousands of years" as useful arguments for.... well.... anything really. The question still remains, should we be doing it NOW.

It really is. The distinction being that enforcing conformity in the moment removes all choice, while the other dynamic does not. It is a massive change in the dynamic of the actual event in the moment, and how that event can play out and resolve itself. And it is a massive change in what is being taught in that moment too in terms of teaching choices have consequences compared with not doing what I want them to do has consequences.

Nope. That assumption is not at all present in, or required for, what I just wrote. You can assume that all you like of course, but I certainly did not and am not required to. The ability to communicate does not require "the same comprehension level" at all. It requires that the person at the higher comprehension level be capable of, and willing to, parse their communication down to the other.

I did not hide behind anything of the sort though. You are inventing things I did not say, and then accusing me of hiding behind them. You might as well be accusing fish of hiding behind the water they swim in for all the sense you are making.

If escalation is required in a given approach, and that escalation reaches a level where it crosses a line into abuse, then that is a problem yes. So as I keep saying each approach has to be evaluated for that potential, and compared on that basis. Even if 100% of all approaches requires escalation at some point, that does not make them all the same. They will differ in the levels it is required.

The violence based approach almost by definition requires escalation because as children grow and strengthen the level of violence required in the past will no longer be enough in the present. There is much less in many other suggested approaches that suggests such escalation is so close to being default, if even required at all.

I do not think that is true at all. You are asserting it without any reason you think it is true. When I spoke of the same thing with violence, I at least explained WHY I think it was so. Which is that a growing child is going to be stronger and have a higher pain tolerance. That at least explains why escalation of the violence may be required. You are not offering a similar explanation for your assertion. For example the removal of a privilege like television access, or access to pleasurable snack foods, can be implemented in an identical fashion on both.

But again like a few other attempts before, including calling it all "manipulation" I do not think finding a common trait between these things automatically makes them equivalent. Even if every approach (which I doubt, but imagine it for the purposes of argument) requires escalation...... there can be massive differences in such requirements between them. If one approach needs a lot of it, and another needs very little of it, then merely classing them both as requiring it will not be informative or useful at all.

Again no such assumption is required for what I am saying. For any given child we do not know when discipline will be required. You might NEVER need it. You might need it daily for every day of the childs life. Or anything in between on that continuum anywhere at all. The question remains whether on any point of that continuum whether a given approach required escalation, if so by how much, and if so can it reach a point where the power dynamic can switch. Certainly a lot of parents will find a point where their child can not only defend themselves but often fight back. And win. What then?

Except I have ignored no such thing. What I have been discussing, when you have not both been putting words in and taking words out of my mouth, is that it does not matter if the "exact same problems" exist from approach to approach. Because no one is claiming any approach makes every problem go away. What IS being claimed is that we can, and should, evaluate each problem type and work out which are the best approaches on each merit.

You keep talking in absolutes that are not present in anything I have said, and then acting like those absolutes are a problem in things I have espoused. Which is a truly odd approach to conversation.

Great. Now if you could just find someone who has been claiming or pretending it is..... I am sure they would benefit from hearing this information. Why you bring it up with me however is anyones guess including, I suspect, your own.

You do not appear to have read what you replied to so I will merely copy and paste it for you again:

"It does not matter what the label is. It is not the flinging of labels itself I was taking issue with. It is the practice of ONLY flinging a label and failing to even attempt to make it stick or validate it's use. There is nothing wrong with labels if you can fling it and then explain why it fits. Flinging it and running away is just throwing spaghetti at a wall in the hope one piece sticks. And that deserves no respect."

And again, I did not just call anything lazy parenting, I explained exactly WHY I think it is so when I have in fact called it that.

The list of assumptions you have invented and merely pretended are inherent in anything I have said is getting rather long at this point. I am wondering if at this point it might be a more honest and mature approach to actually ask me what my assumptions behind any given claim are, rather than telling me what you think they are?

It would, as I keep telling you, entirely depend on how it is implemented, why, and to what effect. Inflicting violence on someone who can not defend themselves in any way is not really comparable with giving a person a choice, accepting when that choice is made, and then making choices of your own. And I do not really buy the "Well the child has the choice not to get slapped" narrative really.......... it strikes me as nonsensical in the same way as a mugger saying "Well I am giving you the choice not to get stabbed with this knife".

Well of course you can. Unless the issue is purely linguistic. The word "equate" can mean entirely equal. But a lot of people use it to mean "compare" or "comparable" too. It is rather a flexible word. So rather than risk a mere miscommunication I think I will avoid that word. What I do believe is that ALL human interactions share many commonalities, trends, factors and attributes. And depending on the contexts and goals, varying degrees of comparisons can be drawn between them and operated upon.

And the comparison I was drawing upon between discussing child discipline and the interaction example from the work place is that very often we afford people their rights AND their privileges. And we go out of our way sometimes in ways we do not have to do to afford them the latter. And so it is a perfectly valid approach, with both children and with adults, to remove one of those things if a situation suggests it is warranted. And if a person, child or coworker adult, is acting in an unethical or immoral fashion..... it is perfectly warranted to say "Fine, that is your choice, but I feel not at all compelled to invest my time and resources in affording you privileges that were never your right to begin with.... especially if you are insist on using what I give you to harm yourself or others".

Despite pouring mere derision on this, you have not actually stopped to explain what any actual issue with it may be.

Not at all, though you will forgive me if I do not take your evaluation seriously when you are pretending I have lost something you were pretending I never had in the first place. Hardly a transition really. But if you can not tell the difference between a statement like that, and outright insults like suggesting I have issues with unacceptable work place behavior then your linguistic issues are deeper than I have been accounting for. You have to HAVE a moral ground to presume to judge that of others. So perhaps clean up your own house before you run a dust checking finger of the side boards in anyone elses.

Just LOL tbh.
You can try to wordsmith your way out of the logical fallacy you have created for yourself but I'm afraid it wont wash with me.

You specifically said that things would be viewed differently if you slapped a female, now you fall back on average strengths. Can you move those goalposts back please, you are ruining our game of 5-a-side?

You *continually* use the example of an isolated slap to define the act of a slap as lazy parenting, WHEN NOT A SINGLE PERSON on here is advocating that. For those who slap, said slap forms part of controlling your children, its not the only thing they do and equally they do not do it on its own. The reason behind the slap is explained, just as you would explain why the child cannot have any sweets.

I will leave you to it as you continue to ignore the corrections to your unbalanced, incorrect argument.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2018 01:38PM

Not falling back on anything. Saying the same thing, but a different way, is still saying the same thing. The wordplay is yours not mine and only the goalposts at your end have been moved. In fact you seem intent on changing the shape of the ball too.

AGAIN the point I am making is violence is generally viewed worse when the victim is less capable of defending themselves against it than the perpetrator.

And in general the physical dynamic between men and women is an example of that. There is nothing sexist about acknowledging factual differences between the sexes. Much as you might need to pretend there is.

And GIVEN that dynamic in the evaluation of violence and GIVEN there is a large power differential between grown adults and children......... I feel this warrants some demand for justification of allowing violence in that dynamic. Justification you are dodging actually offering behind this "sexist" nonsense you are now claiming.

And no I am not "isolating" anything in general. But when making a greater point I can focus in on parts of it. Which is a different thing. And one of the things I would describe as "lazy parenting" is event based parenting.

I am not saying that is solely or only what a violence based approach to discipline is every time every where, as you are pretending, however.

I can not ignore what is not there, and demonstrably the one ignoring this is you...... so your parting shot is merely white noise to me, except to say I doubt you are going to "leave me" to anything. But I do always welcome a chance to test "nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet forum posting".