Speaker: To Smock is to Love
124 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
merc,
Yeah I know, I can't make an outrageous claim just once, just once...
Lyndon have you the lyrics to your song? -
a smock for my female dog and the people got all upset when I wrote a song about it
i used to groove along to that song until i was told the lyrics weren't actually "Snap my picture..."
-
now that's bizarre, not only has someone else made the same mistake (i can understand that, phonemics, ear wax etc), but to make a site about it!
some other amusing material in there too.
-
"Snap my picture..."
smack my bishop?
-
merc,
R. I'm still getting over this,
From 1743 to 1744, he was secretary to the French ambassador in Venice, whose republican government Rousseau would refer to often in his later political work. After this, he returned to Paris, where he befriended and lived with Thérèse Levasseur, a semi-literate seamstress who, according to Rousseau, bore him five children, though this number may not be accurate. All the children were deposited at a foundling hospital soon after birth and would most likely have perished soon afterwards, as the mortality rate for such children was very high. Rousseau's abandonment of his children became a source of embarrassment once he became known as a theorist of education and child-rearing, and was used by enemies including Voltaire to attack him. In his defense, Rousseau explained that he would have been a poor father, and, implausibly, that the children would have a better life at the foundling home.
And this,
Rousseau's ideas about education have profoundly influenced modern educational theory. In Émile he differentiates between healthy and "useless" crippled children. Only a healthy child can be the rewarding object of any educational work. He minimizes the importance of book-learning, and recommends that a child's emotions should be educated before his reason. He placed a special emphasis on learning by experience. John Darling's 1994 book Child-Centered Education and its Critics argues that the history of modern educational theory is a series of footnotes to Rousseau.
I do not think I can like this man green eggs and ham.
-
smack my bishop?
pfnarr pfnarr
m - yeah not very flattering eh? he probably was right ipso facto that "he would have been a poor father, and, implausibly, that the children would have a better life at the foundling home".
having said that, and ironically for sure, he had some quite progressive ideas about education (references to "useless children" notwithstanding), and his magnum opus Spirit of the Laws was quite exceptional.
i guess even people as cool as James Brown have their uglinesses. -
merc,
And Gauguin
I never thought James Brown was cool (especialy not after Chas and Dave), but Miles was. -
merc,
Oh God I mean Derek and Clive.
-
smack my bishop?
Nice one Heather Gaye.
-
smack my bishop?
Aye, still giggling
-
smack my bishop?
Genius.
-
jh,
"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.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
-
The Millichamp item is over 7 months old. Two days after the Herald piece you've linked to, John Bowis, Executive Director of Save the Children, replied
We don’t ask the question of men hitting women “Does it do them any harm or how much will be harmful?” Why do we keep trying to quantify how much we can hit children?
If you're really interested in pursuing this 'debate' indefinitely you can find the full item here:
http://www.savethechildren.org.nz/new_zealand/news/2006-10-09reschphyspun.html
I just find the premise of Millichamp's research downright creepy.
-
jh,
Compares occasional light smacking of children with "hitting women".
Some of you will never get it because you are part of the problem, not the solution. I can see a study like this being as welcome as a pork chop in a synagogue. Bringing it up wouldn't be a good career move in some government departments, where decisions are ideologically driven.
If Millichamps study is right; the people were right, and you people are..well............ missing something
jh -
If Millichamps study is right; the people were right, and you people are..well............ missing something
Missing what, exactly? Millichamp's implying that anyone who questions the value of her research is 'dishonest' does her no credit. Whatever the value of her contribution, this 'debate' is not owned by scientists, any more than children are to be equated with laboratory animals.
-
merc,
jh, I'm happy to be missing what you got.
-
jh,
Missing the ability to see what the unwashed could see. Nature makes us different for good reason, but some people have their brains skewed too far to in one direction (or another).
jh -
some people have their brains skewed too far to in one direction (or another).
As always, I'll defer to the voice of first-hand experience.
Have a lovely day. -
The American Psch Association, as seen on Hard News Recently, via Fundy Post
Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehaviour, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use
There's been a lot of bollocks around on both sides - I never thought the particular thing we seem to be talking about was all that critical. We don'ty exempt any other section of the population from assault law just because the milder forms of their actions aren't established to do any harm.
-
We don't exempt any other section of the population from assault law
'Cept Passengers on aircraft and ships. Masters of ships and pilots of aircraft can use reasonable force to maintain discipline...
-
'Cept Passengers on aircraft and ships. Masters of ships and pilots of aircraft can use reasonable force to maintain discipline...
While this does make me realise how much I was shooting my mouth off in general terms, specifically I can't resist pointing out the law (I imagine) doesn't provide for pilots hitting people to stop them doing it in the future.
Of course, those sailors...
-
This country is entering a new era where the govt will be ruling
our lives, a bit like the Soviet Union during its communist
era. Watch out the next bill these socialists will want to put
through is the hate speech bill. -
Looks like the first casualty of Sir Humphreys' demise has arrived.
-
This country is entering a new era where the govt will be ruling
our lives, a bit like the Soviet Union during its communist
era. Watch out the next bill these socialists will want to put
through is the hate speech bill.Hate speech? Sheesh! If you did some research you might find something a little more substantial to feel paranoid about. Try the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.