Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
inri.
Irrie :)
-
Chuck, there is no kind way of putting this.
You are a loon, and I do not have the time or patience to run your errands.
I suggest that instead you read Tapu Misa's brilliant column on the topic.
I don't expect that it will actually get through to you, but one can only hope.
-
The equivalent post-trial 'sentence' is a discharge without conviction. It seems unlikely in this case.
Duh. That's what I meant. I think the judge has indicated he was prepared to consider it.
-
Now I am a model citizen.
You even make models!
-
I'l an admonished and discharge would do the trick. I was once admonished and discharged by the courts, whilst in my early teens. Now I am a model citizen
Same here, Now I am a citizen :)
-
Despite my years in student politics etc I've never been arrested or even cautioned. I was detained as a young fella when caught out applying the five-finger discount however...
-
I want to be like him when I fully grow up.
I always think it nice when one looks up to their elders.
I was detained as a young fella when caught out applying the five-finger discount however...
My version of detained at 16 was, underage, sitting on the bottom steps of the Vic Hotel (maybe the reverb room???) with some friends.So, enjoying a drink which had been a birthday gift from upstairs, cops (6) dragged me into a van, and up to central to charge me with theft of the glass. Had offered to return it upstairs if they had a problem with me drinking on the stairs. Get to court, Judge thought it pathetic, told the cop off, wished me a happy Birthday and dismissed the charge. Not once did anyone ask how old I was,not once did I say.Ahhh, Lessons of life. :)
-
Despite my years in student politics etc I've never been arrested or even cautioned. I was detained as a young fella when caught out applying the five-finger discount however...
I got bashed with a long baton once (although the police swore the whole incident never happened, that they were never there..those wags in the Team Policing Unit...)...does that count?
-
does that count?
Yep. If you mean harsh warnings, definitely.
-
I suggest that instead you read Tapu Misa's brilliant column on the topic.
I don't expect that it will actually get through to you, but one can only hopeRussell, I had actually read before you pointed it out. I happen to disagree with her in that article. In the past I have exchanged polite emails with her. However, she is an adult and not just chronologically. You could maybe learn a bit from her.
For someone so opposed to violence you are quite an aggressive individual. When you were naughty or defiantly did your father use physical punishment and if so do you think he was a good father. I am sure you are not really a bad person. You just appear to have a few hang ups more than likely form you childhood.
-
I am sure you are not really a bad person. You just appear to have a few hang ups more than likely form you childhood.
Chuck, this isn't the forum for you. I think that's been clear for a while but that kind of ridiculous baiting just doesn't cut it. Bugger off now, do us all a favour. You've got more than enough attention and a quick review of the thread will confirm no-one's buying...
-
What Paul said
-
Below is some research that shows according to some experts that moderate physical discipline does not harm children. The solution lies in targeting parents who use excessive force and getting them to modify their behaviour. Parents like anyone are much more likely to modify their behaviour by being counselled by someone in reasonable manner not dictated to by someone in a highly confrontational manner.
Russell you suggested I read something. I had already read the article. I suggest you read the article below.
There are well over a million parents in this country who disagree with your position that a smacking a defiant toddle on the l the legs is a beating or child abuse. Many these parents would have degrees in medicine and psychology. Did you think you are more intelligent than all of them? You do not have to agree with them any more than I have to agree with everything Tapu Misa writes. However, you can show some respect for other people’s opinions. You started this thread with a vicious attack on some very good people because they viewed things differently then you.
This argument will not go away because of the aggressive nature of fanatics like you who put their left wing ideology ahead of the welfare of children.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.htmlUC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood
24 August 2001By Patricia McBroom, Media Relations
Berkeley - Occasional spanking does not damage a child's social or emotional development, according to a study of long-term consequences in the lives of more than 100 families, reported today (Friday, Aug. 24) by a University of California, Berkeley, psychologist.
The research presented by Diana Baumrind, who co-authored the study with Elizabeth Owens, both research psychologists at UC Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, calls into question a current claim that any physical punishment is harmful to a child.
The study separates out parents who use spanking frequently and severely - resulting in evidence of harm - and focuses on those families who occasionally spank their children, a practice that Baumrind calls normal for the population sampled.
By "spanking," Baumrind refers to striking the child on the buttocks, hands or legs with an open hand without inflicting physical injury and with the intention of modifying the child's behavior.
Baumrind's study also compares spanking with another kind of discipline, namely verbal punishment.
"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment," Baumrind said in an invited address to the American Psychological Association annual meeting today in San Francisco.
"I am not an advocate of spanking," said Baumrind, "but a blanket injunction against its use is not warranted by the evidence. It is reliance on physical punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated with harm to the child."
She said that, in the absence of compelling evidence of harm, parental autonomy and family privacy should be protected.
Her study of spanking in middle-class, white families was undertaken in response to anti-spanking advocates who have claimed that physical punishment, by itself, has harmful psychological effects on children and hurts society as a whole.
These claims, Baumrind said, have not distinguished the effects of occasional mild-to-moderate spanking from more severe punishment, or taken into account such confounding factors as earlier child misbehavior and the effects of total child rearing patterns - from rejection, on one hand, to warmth and explanation, on the other.
The UC Berkeley study, however, was able to account for all of these factors and others, due to its unique data base. The data were drawn from longitudinal records of child rearing and child outcome in California East Bay families collected at the Institute of Human Development. Families in the Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project (FSP) were first studied in 1968 when their children were preschoolers, and then in 1972-73 and 1978-80, when the children were early primary schoolers and early adolescents.
In addition to the rich archival material on parental styles and discipline, combined with independent observations and interviews with the children, Baumrind's team created a new instrument for the spanking study. Called the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale, this instrument rated parents on their strategies for using discipline.
Few of the families, only 4 percent, never used physical punishment when their children were preschoolers, but there was a wide range in the frequency and severity of spanking throughout the whole sample, said Baumrind.
A small minority of parents, from 4 to 7 percent depending on the time period, used physical punishment often and with some intensity. Although these parents were not legally abusive, they were overly severe and used spanking impulsively. Hitting occurred frequently, but it was the intensity that really identified this group, said Baumrind.
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
This group of parents, identified in the "red zone" for "stop" was removed from the sample at the first stage of analysis. With them went most of the correlations initially found between spanking and long-term harm to children, said Baumrind.
"When we removed this 'red zone' group of parents," said Baumrind, "we were left with very few small but significant correlations between normative physical punishment and later misbehavior among the children at age 8 to 9.
"Red zone parents are rejecting, exploitative and impulsive. They are parents who punish beyond the norm. You have very little to explain after you remove this small group."
She said the few links that remained were explained by the child's prior misbehavior. In other words, when researchers controlled for the tendency of the child to be uncooperative or defiant as preschoolers, all correlations between spanking and harmful effects were close to zero.
In addition to a "red zone," parents were classified into orange, yellow and green zones.
"There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone)," Baumrind said.
Families in the orange zone could have used spanking often, but with little or no intensity. Those in the "yellow zone" used physical punishment only occasionally, with little or no intensity, while those in the "green zone" used little or no physical punishment with no intensity.
The children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly, Baumrind said.
Studies of verbal punishment yielded similar results, in that researchers found correlations just as high, and sometimes higher, for total verbal punishment and harm to the child, as for total physical punishment and harm.
"What really matters," said Baumrind, "is the child rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child (a pattern Baumrind calls authoritative) the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers."
Baumrind emphasized that her study does not address at all the damaging effects of abusive physical punishment, of which she and other researchers have found ample evidence.
-
Just yuk.
-
Baumrind is always cited by pro-smackers -- there are very few supportive studies available to them. You don't hear so much of the criticism by other researchers that appeared in the same journal.
She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly worse off than the ones who were never hit.
She's been criticised for her unrealistic concept of "normative spanking", only seldom, never done in anger, etc. Certainly, not a single one of the cases we've discussed in this thread looks anything like that.
And the bad smackers, who demonstrably damaged their children's future lives? From your pasted-in text above:
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
Hey, you know, I think there's been a court case just lately for a dad who hit his small child in the face, and repeatedly lifted his even smaller brother up and forced him down to the ground. What was his name? Oh , yes: Jimmy Mason.
Baumrind's solution for the problem of non-perfect parents is not exactly of the real world either. From the linked article above:
The solution, according to Baumrind et al (2002), is that parents disposed to abuse because they are easily frustrated or inclined toward controlling behavior “should not spank” (p. 585). Their suggestion is both unrealistic and unimplementable as public policy. For one, their directive requires either that parents police themselves or that there be some kind of screening test that identifies parents at risk for abusive behavior. All parents experience anger and frustration at their children, and all parents are bigger and stronger than their young children; it would seem, then, that all parents have the potential to be physically abusive. Even if those parents at “true” risk for abuse could be identified (such as by already being reported for physically abusing their children), how would this policy be enforced? Would those parents at risk for abuse be required to attend parenting classes? What would the penalties be for not attending the classes? Indeed, what would the consequences be if such parents used corporal punishment after all?
Mr Mason, with his "angry dad mode" would not seem to fare too well.
Can I have my life back now?
-
Baumrind is always cited by pro-smackers -- there are very few supportive studies available to them. You don't hear so much of the criticism by other researchers that appeared in the same journal.
She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly worse off than the ones who were never hit.
There's also the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. I believe that appeared to find that children disciplined with mild/light smacking 'had "similar or even slightly better outcomes" than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.'
As for there being "very few supportive studies" ... the lead author of that component of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study offered the following, which may explain that "... psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand."
The Herald article in which she was quoted (linked above) also noted:
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
"I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.
"The more honest researchers have said, let's be honest, we all wish we could say it's all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child - although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself - but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together."
Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the "slippery slope" theory - that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.
"We couldn't find any," she said.
But then, I don't really want to defend smacking either.
Also don't ask me to defend smoking ... even though I don't think that should be illegal.
-
One of the edgy matters about 'soft-science' research is a necessary reliance on anecdata.
Parents say this/kids say thus and the variables are *huge*.
I can only offer 2 kinds of anecdata:
1: life experience: you whack any animal often. you get a fearful cowed beast - or a sullen vengeful one. You do not get a healthily functioning animal.
2: what is deemed 'reasonable corporal punishment'(legally, societally) on human animals will be endured & shrugged off by some; resented and twist (in many different ways)a majority of others, and destroy/warp entirely a few.
I am only talking about physical abuse, and realise there are several other kinds (religious indoctrination for a not-normally mentioned e.g.)
There is no good scientific evidence that ANY kind of corporal punishment (there are a lot of others aside from smacking/beating/whacking -deprivation of food/comfort/normal contact etc.)does anything good to/for the inflicted.It is a matter of dominance, subjection, and control.
-
you whack any animal often. you get a fearful cowed beast - or a sullen vengeful one.
Or, as the case may be, a sullen vengeful Bird.
-
Joe- yep!
-
Well if you want to discuss research….
From the linked articleThe high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse does not imply a causal link as Gershoff seemed to suggest when she said, “Child abuse in any form is a tragedy and deserves our best prevention efforts, and thus the potential for corporal punishment to escalate into physical abuse must be seriously considered at the levels of scientific research and public policy
That’s because its not causal, it is dictinct, (but could be co–related). Russell said:
Baumrind's solution for the problem of non-perfect parents is not exactly of the real world either. From the linked article above:
No, not “non-perfect parents; Parents disposed to abuse. No all “non-perfect” parents are disposed to abuse. The article which Gershoff responded to [it’s late.. so cant be bothered to find it online] said Gershoff failed to acknowledge the necessity to distinguish between the harsh and light smacking in her studies, (bringing into question the study’s validity).
Because her measure included many instances of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her analyses are not relevant to the current political debate about whether [light physical punishment] is harmful for children.
Gershoff’s response [linked above] to that point wasn’t particularly compelling. But finally said
education campaigns aimed at emphasizing alternatives to corporal punishment are likely to be the most acceptable and effective way of decreasing the use of corporal punishment
Like, more effective than changing the law.Here in New Zealand parents like Mason aren't exposed to education campagns to the extent of changing behavior, just the effects of the law, because that's what Sue Bradford and her friends wanted to emphasise.
-
No, not “non-perfect parents; Parents disposed to abuse. No all “non-perfect” parents are disposed to abuse.
And according to Baumrind, those disposed were inclined to be easily frustrated or had a controlling nature. They were supposed to self-diagnose and self-regulate themselves into not smacking.
[Insert Tui billboard here.]
As Gershoff said, the idea of the government doing it for them is more than a little problematic. It would seem more straightforward for hitting children to be unacceptable.
-
As for there being "very few supportive studies" ... the lead author of that component of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study offered the following, which may explain that "... psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand."
The other way of looking at it is that if you separate the most low-impact corporal punishment from the rest, your results improve to the point where they're about as good as not using corporal punishment at all.
-
Like, more effective than changing the law.Here in New Zealand parents like Mason aren't exposed to education campagns to the extent of changing behavior, just the effects of the law, because that's what Sue Bradford and her friends wanted to emphasise.
However convenient it is to demonise Bradford and her "friends", it rather ignores the fact that Plunket, Barnados, Unicef, Save the Children and other agencies that deal directly with child welfare backed the removal of the S59 defence and now support the "yes" vote in the referendum
If you're going to trivialise it with that sort of language, Bradford has more impressive "friends" than the other side of the argument does.
-
if you separate the most low-impact corporal punishment from the rest, your results improve to the point where they're about as good as not using corporal punishment at all.
About as good, or better , was the conclusion.
And yet we still make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment'.
-
About as good, or better, was the conclusion.
Possibly slightly better, in one, albeit robust, study. As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.