March 15, 2012
Okay ac ya f-tard I am going to try to stay nice…but I just have to come back to you once more…so bear with me folks but…I think it’s important to what I am trying to accomplish overall with my blog and that is that we cannot learn to discuss and solve our issues as a country with f-tards like you refusing to use yer critical thinking…
“OK first let me clarify my use of the word ‘violence’ in the context of parenting.
I am referring to the parent using physical force (or the threat of it) in place of reasoning and peaceful negotiation with the child. That physical force may include physical violence as a punishment (or the threat of violence to act as a deterrent). It could also refer to violence/ physical force used by the parent to impose his/ her will upon the child forcefully in the moment. Of course there is also the psychological component associated with these physical acts or threats (fear, pain, terror, abandonment, humiliation, anxiety, stress, confusion etc).
Now hopefully I finally understand yer argument, you believe any and I will repeat any type of discipline, negative; and only reasoning and peaceful negotiations with children to be appropriate. That’s all I was looking for, I mean, again I will say that yer statement is hilariously ridiculous…and also that you are right it is impossible to debate your argument…
As far as I can tell you support the use of this kind of violence on children and have used these kinds of parenting techniques yourself on occasion. In other words you support these parenting techniques and consider them preferable on occasion.”
Once again you fail to actually read, or choose to overlook, what I have actually said. I have said on more than one occasion during our dialogue that I believed as you did, and raised my children using these techniques reason and peaceful negotiations…I was pretty clear on that, your lack of attention to this detail is just one of the reasons I am posting yer response again. I have, not just in these posts, but in the posts that I suggested you read (to get some background) have repeated on numerous occasions that it is the failure of not only these child raising techniques, but the overall dismal failure of much of my generation’s ‘nu-philosophies’ (we were actually suppose to improve society) that is a big part of the impetus for writing this blog (dysu) in particular.
What I realized upon my observing my own children struggle as they entered the adult world is that I failed them by not imparting certain key lessons of life, and I think they are the worse off for it. In hindsight, (what I have tried to explain to you) is that despite all I believed going into it, now having raised children and seeing the end result of “reason only” child rearing…I am ready to eat some crow and give a slight nod of acknowledgement to the thousands of generations (including even my own dysfunctional parents) who understood some discipline was necessary (again how much and of what type, when, where, that is debatable)…
I myself have never yet claimed to know anything specifically, I mean other to say I don’t know all I thought I knew, get it? Oh and that your logic sucks.
Speaking of debate, what you have also failed to realize is that I am not debating you (yet I mean how can I when you are right) on the topic of child rearing. I am only debating you on your use of faulty logic to prove your assertions. Your very premise, that all “discipline is is violence” is based on the theory that all discipline is applied inconsistently and with malice and this “fact” is incorrect, so it is impossible to debate.
Secondarily, is your stance on reasoning, like much of your theoretical argument, it lies at the heart of the b.s. that all children are born with the equal capacity for intellectual thought and reason (another “pop” psychology” theory”). A nice fairy tale but unsupported by actual fact.
Just so I make it clear abandonedculture, you can send me all the links and studies you want showing how beatings hurt kids (not my argument), you can send me all the studies you want supporting your side of the “reasoning vs. discipline” debate (I can do likewise but that’s not [though you have failed to grasp it yet] the topic here). But unless (that is if you are actually interested in an honest and open discussion) you can understand my two main points; 1. You have to use concise points addressing the topic at hand (the topic in this instance, the original article you had linked to was about clarifying laws regarding discipline, not beating, yet your original argument consistently and only resorted to the most graphic uses of over or excessive discipline [not allowing for the countless and well documented studies that suggest otherwise; that limited, proactive discipline done without malice or aggression is not only healthy but needed for a child]) 2. You need to understand your debate opponent (do your homework, read his position carefully, try not to make assumptions, if you do ask for clarification in case you are wrong).
Finally that leads me to my last point. I am still assuming you are a twenty something (grad student?) with no kids, I might be wrong, tried to find out really did. And if I assumed you believed 9/11 conspiracy (which you and every one else reading knows what I mean no matter how you try to obfuscate with some light and off target mockery) it is only because you posted and positively commented on a video supporting such views. I assume these things because of what you yourself have said, not only here, but in other posts. I know you think your opinions are really wise, you can tell by this statement “It is an uncomfortable question, which I acknowledged when I asked it.” lol it is to laugh…
Please don’t respond, I get yer message, as goofy and unrealistic as it is, any discipline is bad discipline, you go and raise yer kids with that theory, hovering around your infant and toddler constantly, getting in endless theoretical loop arguments with a two year old extolling the virtue of carrots over potato chips, pointless debates with a thirteen year old over the importance of learning to spell when the computer just does it for them, only to lose the debate in the end and have a child who can’t spell anything past yer most basic words, that’s what I did, that’s what we as a country have been doing for the last thirty years or so, and it’s going great.
If I had my chance to do it over again I would say what my parents said “Do it because I told ya to.” That’s a pretty good lesson for life lol. I know you don’t agree…I don’t give an f….let me know what you think after you have raised some kids
And again ac, just so we’re clear, I am not debating you on yer topic, ( I can’t possibly take anything you say seriously due to the lack of intellectual merit) I was just trying to point out the flaws in yer debate style, so if you feel you must respond to this don’t if all you have to say is that ” Mmm, beating children is bad, Mkay”, cause we both agree on that .
March 12, 2012
Well, hopefully within this last post because I got plenty of other fish in the bucket, as it were…
Ac, ac, ac, again I am not sure where to begin. I went and looked and tried to find more info. I checked yer info page, read a number of your other posts trying to make sure there wasn’t somehow more to your argument, such as you were raised in an abusive household, grew up poor and in a rough way anything re: your age, schooling, personal experiences. I did read that you have traveled around this “awesome ball”. That implies you are a world traveler (whether that is true or not is unclear at this point) but what that specifically means regarding helping me define who you are I don’t know…
But from your posts, and your reply I am going to assume a couple things, forgive me in advance if they are wrong, but I did attempt to find the information out.
Unlike yourself, ac who was given the opportunity to learn something about the person before they assumed anything, but did not take the opportunity, yet cast their assumptions anyway…(But have you ever wondered if the very fact that you consider violence acceptable, and even preferable, might be a sign of the damage which you suffered as a result of your own childhood?) Oh it is to laugh. I’m pretty sure I’ve spelled out quite clearly the damages I suffered as a child and the resulting effect it’s had on my life but….plus ya wanna keep your arguments to things I have actually said.
I was raised in an abusive household, on a physical par a little above average for kids of my generation, but physical beatings are not the only kind of abuse children can suffer. I left home for the first time when I was thirteen and ran the streets pretty much on and off again till I was nearly twenty eight. So I understand abuse and the affects it can have on both children and the adult victims of said abuse.
Later in life I studied psychology, as many abuse victims do, and came very close (practicum classes) to becoming a licensed therapist on his way to bigger and better things (until I realized I like to talk more than listen). So indeed I understand in great detail, not just from a practical experience pov, but the theoretical applications as well…
I have worked in the social service field* we’ll get to that below
I have helped raise four children, (even was househusband for awhile)and have tried (lol) more than one parenting style. Determined of course, not to repeat my own childhood, (and from a psych pov yes over compensating) I may have been to lax on disciplining my own children (who are for the most part God Bless ‘em pretty good human beings).
But again, then we are back to my original point and the point I feel you still have not addressed. You seem to want to claim that discipline is important, but you also seem to be suggesting that any “physical” discipline is akin to “beatings” and violence against children. You do this repeatedly, first in your original post, and now in your reply, the words violence and “beating” or “beaten” appear numerous times
Again I will repeat my earlier assertion that if what your saying is that adults should not “beat” their children, I think everyone reading this post is in agreement with you…calling your average swats on the butt to teach your persistent two year old that there are consequences for going in the street “beatings”, that is what is debatable.
And this is where your logic is faulty, because one is true, does not make the other true. Because I swat my sixteen months old hand when she reaches for the stove does not mean I believe in beating my child (not something I ever did, but see the reasoning behind such things now, as my children enter adult lives lol)
Secondarily but equally as valid, is your logic issue regarding the outcome of said beatings. You seem to have a basic grasp of some rudimentary psychology, but it is, again, put to use in your argument in a way that is not only counter productive to your overall agenda, (having your readers agree with your assertion that hitting a child in any way shape or form is abuse) but unsupportable by actual facts.
You assert only the negative outcomes of such abuse on the adult victims. You state or imply, again both in your original post and your reply here to me, on numerous occasion about the long term effects of “violence” against children. But, even if I accept your original assertion that any form of physical discipline is akin to “violence”, than many of those who have suffered such “beatings” have gone on to do incredible things as adults. In fact you could almost say all of history (up until the modern “any physical discipline is abuse” years) has been founded on adults (including many great US Presidents)who have suffered such outrageous violence such as a “switching”.
But lets look at your argument one step further, even if a child suffers terrible abuse at the hands of a parent (or any adult), there is no guaranteed outcome…just look at Oprah Winfrey….I could list numerous examples. I’m not saying abuse is good. Again what I’m saying is your logic is flawed, that’s all, because one thing is true, does not make the other true.
What I was trying to say, what I am still trying to say is make sure you have sound arguments and are definitive in your assertions.
After all this I am quite clear that you believe beating and violence against children is wrong, but I am still unclear whether you actually meananyphysical discipline is excessive, or ??
I mean I enjoy a good debate, it is one of the reasons I have chose to use this as a post instead of simply replying, but I like my opponents to come well armed as it were lol.
And here’s where I can help you. Where as I don’t believe in beating children. I do believe, have come to believe, and have seen evidence now on numerous occasion where some children deserve a good beating (*). Now that is obviously a topic you and I could debate, you bring yer facts to the table, I’ll bring mine…
If, again I will repeat myself to make sure my statement is clear, you just wanna say adults shouldn’t use capricious and unnecessary violence against children, I and every(sane)one else are on board.
But if you want to make the claim that all physical disciple is abuse, and that all abuse of children leads to violent adults (or even, less reasonable adults) the facts (not my facts but the facts) do not support your arguments and I will gladly debate them.
Lastly, like many young people, (one of the assumptions I am making that may be wrong[but I will be surprised if i am]) you assert on numerous occasions that it is this violence against children which teaches them to be violent, (not your fault, you haven’t been educated properly). That is why I called your theories ‘pop” psychology because it begins, is founded on the flawed premise that humans have to be taught to be violent, the facts do not support this theory and I am always surprised it still gets props in this day and age.
If you take two infants who have been raised by loving parents and place them in a room with one teddy bear(limited resources), a vicious fight is going to break out. So the express opposite is true, we have to teach babies not to resort to violence. And before you say it, the use of violence in this issue, from my perspective would be a capricious use of violence so…no, no rational thinking parents suggests using violence to teach nonviolence (though we (humans) use to (back in the days of yore) and it most cases that worked pretty good also, lol.
So lets review…
1. You assert physical disciple=violence\beatings.
2. You assert physical disciple=negative outcome.
3. You assert physical disciple=violent adults=recycled discipline= recycled violence
They are all a truth, but not necessarily the truth…get it.
So this is all I’m sayin, make sure yer arguments are cohesive, structured around sound logic and, hyperbole aside, factually founded, that’s all.
Lastly, lastly, when you believe corporations are out to get ya, the greedy rich are ruining the country, that alternative energies are plausible today, that 9-11 might be a conspiracy, and that babies are born as some perfect vessel (as compared to a living genetic being with it’s own blueprint and instincts for survival) of humanistic ideals well then ya’ seem kind’a like a hippie (a word coined by the American Beats meaning a little but hip). This is again my second assumption which I indeed am making in this post, only based on what I have read of your work, so forgive me again…
But you probably aren’t…you were just taught by one. Anyway, I’m sure we pretty much can agree to disagree on most issues, but feel free to stop by anytime, perhaps we can discuss your limited, immature and somewhat ignorant views on slavery and racism…Oh it is to laugh.
Filed in culture, Humor, humorous self analysis, Opinion, psychology, social satire, Uncategorized
Tags: 9-11 conspiricy, abuse, alternitive energies, beasting, beats, culture, discipline, facts, faulty locig, hippies, humor, logic, opinion, Oprah, pop psychology, psychology, Rosanne, social issues, spanking, truth, violence