The pastor and his wife wrote a book about raising children that, in his own words, uses "the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules."
That should be the first warning flag. The book is based on methods of dealing with ANIMALS.
The next warning flag? It recommends which objects to hit your kid with, such as belts and plumbing tubes. It also says that a little starvation can be good, and recommends physical punishment as young as six months.
So far, this book's advice has been linked to at least 3 deaths, listed in the article linked to at the top of the page.
Now, I'm not saying all corporal punishment is bad. I'm not convinced one way or another as to the morality of a spanking every now and then. However, this goes WAY beyond a swat on the rear. The fact that some kids are dead should testify to that.
My reason for bringing this up is to ask a question: should the pastor and his wife be held responsible for deaths caused by those following his advice? I do believe that the parents who actually did the killing should be held responsible, but what about the people who's advice they were following? Are they at fault as well?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
First: Holy balls, that's bad. Haven't followed the link, but that's bad.
Second, regarding your question: That's tricky. I'd like to say yes, but the precedent that could be set for holding an author responsible for what a reader does... I'm remembering the WoW player who raged at like server downtime or something and ran outside and killed the first person he saw. Two totally different situations, but I don't like the idea that a precedent could lead to treating the latter as the former.
Linkified
Also depends on how close to the book was followed. If it gives instructions on what to watch for as danger signs and those kinda things weren't heeded then not really there fault any more than you not following instructions on the asprin box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, regarding your question: That's tricky. I'd like to say yes, but the precedent that could be set for holding an author responsible for what a reader does... I'm remembering the WoW player who raged at like server downtime or something and ran outside and killed the first person he saw. Two totally different situations, but I don't like the idea that a precedent could lead to treating the latter as the former.
Yea, I find it a somewhat uncomfortable precedent as well, but at the same time I have a hard time not blaming the pastor and his wife. I'd personally like to see both of them and every parent who killed a child on that book's advice get the death penalty. They deserve it.
Linkified
Also depends on how close to the book was followed. If it gives instructions on what to watch for as danger signs and those kinda things weren't heeded then not really there fault any more than you not following instructions on the asprin box.
Thanks for fixing the link.
I'd think if such instructions existed the pastor would be pointing at them to get people off his back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your question: NO. If someone is stupid enough to follow the horrible advice that is put in that book, then that someone is responsible for their own choice and actions. Charging the pastor and his wife for the actions of another, regardless of their 'expert' (not really) opinion on child rearing being put to print, from my own perspective feeds the "I'm a victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions" mentality. The same mentality that allows people to sue for getting injured playing sports, getting fat for eating fast food, or accepting a cup of coffee from a drive-through employee and stupidly placing the cup between your legs, and much more.
To answer your question: NO. If someone is stupid enough to follow the horrible advice that is put in that book, then that someone is responsible for their own choice and actions. Charging the pastor and his wife for the actions of another, regardless of their 'expert' (not really) opinion on child rearing being put to print, from my own perspective feeds the "I'm a victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions" mentality. The same mentality that allows people to sue for getting injured playing sports, getting fat for eating fast food, or accepting a cup of coffee from a drive-through employee and stupidly placing the cup between your legs, and much more.
Oh, I fully believe that those who did the actual killing should be executed. Granted, some have already been sentenced, so that isn't going to happen, but if there was ever a case that called for lethal injections, it's this one. What I'm asking is if the pastor and his wife should be charged alongside the killers, not in place of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your question: NO. If someone is stupid enough to follow the horrible advice that is put in that book, then that someone is responsible for their own choice and actions. Charging the pastor and his wife for the actions of another, regardless of their 'expert' (not really) opinion on child rearing being put to print, from my own perspective feeds the "I'm a victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions" mentality. The same mentality that allows people to sue for getting injured playing sports, getting fat for eating fast food, or accepting a cup of coffee from a drive-through employee and stupidly placing the cup between your legs, and much more.Oh, I fully believe that those who did the actual killing should be executed. Granted, some have already been sentenced, so that isn't going to happen, but if there was ever a case that called for lethal injections, it's this one. What I'm asking is if the pastor and his wife should be charged alongside the killers, not in place of them.
No. This is the other side of the coin of Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression. It's the crappy side. They are expressing are much detailed explanation of "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Is their work heinous and a travesty? Yes. Should they be punished for it? Even as accomplices for the horrific actions of others? No.
If a parent wants to hit their kid then they'll hit their kid. Holding up a book and saying that's where they got the idea is just an excuse and a poor one at that.
I don't blame the book. I can't. No parent who wants to hit their kid will wait politely for a book to come around and teach them how. No parent who wants to starve their kid will wait for someone to tell them it's okay.
Starvation starts with sending the kid to bed without dinner for a few nights. Realizing that it works. Withholding a few more meals for longer periods to get the kid to behave.
Beatings begin with simple spankings with a hand, a belt, maybe a spoon. Threats along the lines of 'Shut up or I'll give you something to cry about'. Following through on those threats in a fit of anger. The parent spanking their kid until she goes quiet from exhaustion or simple passing out. Having to hide the bruises...
...no one has to teach the parents how. They already know. ::shudders::
I need a hug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fear and respect are completely different things. Hitting your child creates fear. Teaching your child with great patience and persevering through difficulty require real strength and teach respect. You gain respect by showing it, by giving it, by being strong, even when times are tough. Hitting is easy. It requires no true strength. It is not respect.
You do not solve your problems with other adults by hitting them. Maybe some people do not do so because they fear legal repercussions. I hope most of us do not hit other adults because we know it is wrong. I would hope the same people who believe that is wrong, know that hitting somebody who is defenseless against you, is morally bankrupt.
Children are in the business of playing, and they are in the business of making mistakes. Making mistakes is how children learn, and it is their very nature. When an adult hits a child, he is doing nothing more than punishing that child for doing the thing that child must naturally do to grow and learn. He is framing the elemental judgment of that child, to believe that the solution to whatever may bother you, is violence and fear.
What a sad, sorry state our country is in, from people hitting their children.
My son is now eleven years old. He has been instructed in decency towards others and he has been given living examples. He has known reasonable discipline in the form of withholding of something enjoyable. But never my love, never my patience, never my respect of his person and his job, as a child, to make mistakes and learn from them. I have relied upon good will, affection, and reasonable discussion, and my child is a shining star at his school. The adults know him as kind, eager to please, and a hard worker.
Spare the rod and spoil the child is a three-thousand-year-old lie. I challenge any god to come down here and tell me I am wrong. Any god who would is no god of mine.
Maybe "Self Help" books should be certified and held responsible for instructing others to commit dangerous acts.
With the law as is, to persecute the two would set the precedence of authors being held responsible for what their readers do; there are no legal lines to separate fiction and sarcasm from self help literature.
Selling inaccurate information as professional help is just as dangerous as selling drugs without listing their side effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe "Self Help" books should be certified and held responsible for instructing others to commit dangerous acts.
With the law as is, to persecute the two would set the precedence of authors being held responsible for what their readers do; there are no legal lines to separate fiction and sarcasm from self help literature.
Selling inaccurate information as professional help is just as dangerous as selling drugs without listing their side effects.
I like the idea of making self help books be certified. It restricts the precedent of authors being responsible to a very specific type of author.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to go hand in hand with such a topic as "Do video games/television make children violent?" Or "Is McDonald's making you fat?" The problem is that people do not want to take personal responsibility for their actions and want to blame others because, let's face it, it's no fun being wrong. I have to agree with whoever said that they should not be held accountable, for as much harm that they may cause it is the individual who made the choice to utilize their techniques in the first place. As the saying goes, you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
This seems to go hand in hand with such a topic as "Do video games/television make children violent?" Or "Is McDonald's making you fat?" The problem is that people do not want to take personal responsibility for their actions and want to blame others because, let's face it, it's no fun being wrong. I have to agree with whoever said that they should not be held accountable, for as much harm that they may cause it is the individual who made the choice to utilize their techniques in the first place. As the saying goes, you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
But if you take a thirsty horse to poison water and the horse drinks it's okay?
It's one thing if a person does something really stupid based on fiction. It is something completely different when someone goes around instructing people to do something dangerous. How would you feel if some teacher told kids that it's fun and not dangerous to shoot others with guns? Would you really say that the teacher is not accountable if a child dies?
I agree that people need not be responsible for others emulating fiction, but when you literally go around convincing people to do something dangerous with all seriousness, you are a terrible person. This doesn't mean that the people committing the acts aren't in the wrong, because they are, but that the people that instructed them are also in the wrong, because they told them what to do and said it was okay.
Which is why I think that the law as is, they shouldn't be charged, and why the Self Help books need some sort of certification to separate them from such works. It would separate professionals who know what their talking about from people saying stuff to make a quick buck.
I think the cause/effect here is a bit reversed.
|
But if you take a thirsty horse to poison water and the horse drinks it's okay?
Yes.
How would you feel if some teacher told kids that it's fun and not dangerous to shoot others with guns? Would you really say that the teacher is not accountable if a child dies?
Not accountable. I would suggest finding a better teacher, assuming your child is still alive.
But I'm kind of on the fence on things like this. A person is invited over for dinner and dies of food poison. A person agrees to sex and receives an STD. A person unwraps a gift and doing so triggers a bomb inside which kills him. My lean is to say "buyer beware" and that the "sellers" are just meanies.
But if you take a thirsty horse to poison water and the horse drinks it's okay?
It's one thing if a person does something really stupid based on fiction. It is something completely different when someone goes around instructing people to do something dangerous. How would you feel if some teacher told kids that it's fun and not dangerous to shoot others with guns? Would you really say that the teacher is not accountable if a child dies?
I agree that people need not be responsible for others emulating fiction, but when you literally go around convincing people to do something dangerous with all seriousness, you are a terrible person. This doesn't mean that the people committing the acts aren't in the wrong, because they are, but that the people that instructed them are also in the wrong, because they told them what to do and said it was okay.
Which is why I think that the law as is, they shouldn't be charged, and why the Self Help books need some sort of certification to separate them from such works. It would separate professionals who know what their talking about from people saying stuff to make a quick buck.
Actually, there really is no difference. If you read a book and the book told you to jump off a bridge, is it the author's fault if you do so? I'm being serious here. Just because you read something, or hear something, or even watch something doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it yourself and not take responsibility for the consequences. As human beings, we are supposed to be intelligent creatures with the ability to think for ourselves and make decisions we think are right or wrong. Truth be told, in scenarios like this, you won't even know if it was right or wrong until something tragic or bad happens. For example, antifreeze was originally designed as a children's cough suppressant. It wasn't until many of the kids died from usage that they stopped producing it. One could argue that it was irresponsible to give them it in the first place, but they would have never known the dangers unless they did so. While the authors are obviously not great people, let alone subject matter experts, just because they wrote a book on this topic doesn't mean that the book itself is wrong. The book is just a thing, like a gun, it's what people do with it that make it a good or bad thing. (Given this situation the best thing they could do with this book is burn it.) The biggest reason I don't think the author's need to be held accountable is because I do not believe they wrote this book with the intention of the outcome that happened and I'm certain that if they were to be interviewed they would say that it was never meant to be taken to that extreme. I have a hard time believing that they are sitting in some dark dungeon, wringing their hands, and saying "Mwhahaha, soon my plan will be complete!" People do dumb things, but it is their choice to do those dumb things (and not doing more research or claiming ignorance are poor excuses in my book).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, there really is no difference. If you read a book and the book told you to jump off a bridge, is it the author's fault if you do so? I'm being serious here. Just because you read something, or hear something, or even watch something doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it yourself and not take responsibility for the consequences. As human beings, we are supposed to be intelligent creatures with the ability to think for ourselves and make decisions we think are right or wrong. Truth be told, in scenarios like this, you won't even know if it was right or wrong until something tragic or bad happens. For example, antifreeze was originally designed as a children's cough suppressant. It wasn't until many of the kids died from usage that they stopped producing it. One could argue that it was irresponsible to give them it in the first place, but they would have never known the dangers unless they did so. While the authors are obviously not great people, let alone subject matter experts, just because they wrote a book on this topic doesn't mean that the book itself is wrong. The book is just a thing, like a gun, it's what people do with it that make it a good or bad thing. (Given this situation the best thing they could do with this book is burn it.) The biggest reason I don't think the author's need to be held accountable is because I do not believe they wrote this book with the intention of the outcome that happened and I'm certain that if they were to be interviewed they would say that it was never meant to be taken to that extreme. I have a hard time believing that they are sitting in some dark dungeon, wringing their hands, and saying "Mwhahaha, soon my plan will be complete!" People do dumb things, but it is their choice to do those dumb things (and not doing more research or claiming ignorance are poor excuses in my book).
Except that in most areas of society, we do have licenses and certifications for doctors, lawyers, and teachers. The people who are supposed to know things. People need to be aware of the difference between professional and well studied knowledge versus the 2 cents that someone through off the top of their head. That's why disclaimers exist.
The problem is that although people are supposed to be intelligent, we are rather limited in knowledge and it's impossible for every single person to know everything. That's why we have specialists and that's why those specialists are required to have certifications to better insure they are trustworthy.
To act as a specialist in area you do not really understand is dangerous to others who acknowledge your information. It does not mean you're malicious, but you're being irresponsible to do such.
EDIT: It's not like there aren't specialists in the well being of children (Called pediatrics); nor are the effects of starvation and beatings so mysterious that they need to be tested.
Actually, there really is no difference. If you read a book and the book told you to jump off a bridge, is it the author's fault if you do so? I'm being serious here. Just because you read something, or hear something, or even watch something doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it yourself and not take responsibility for the consequences.Just to address part of your post here: I don't think anyone has claimed that the parents shouldn't be held responsible. The question is only whether the author also bears some responsibility. It's not a zero-sum game where any blame that falls on the author is removed from the parents.
Right, but he was stating that not only should the parents be blamed but so should the authors. I'm saying that just because someone writes, says or even does something doesn't mean that if you do it, you are not responsible for your actions and can get away with saying "I was told to".
Except that in most areas of society, we do have licenses and certifications for doctors, lawyers, and teachers. The people who are supposed to know things. People need to be aware of the difference between professional and well studied knowledge versus the 2 cents that someone through off the top of their head. That's why disclaimers exist.
The problem is that although people are supposed to be intelligent, we are rather limited in knowledge and it's impossible for every single person to know everything. That's why we have specialists and that's why those specialists are required to have certifications to better insure they are trustworthy.
To act as a specialist in area you do not really understand is dangerous to others who acknowledge your information. It does not mean you're malicious, but you're being irresponsible to do such.
EDIT: It's not like there aren't specialists in the well being of children (Called pediatrics); nor are the effects of starvation and beatings so mysterious that they need to be tested.
Now you are splitting hairs and compairing apples to oranges. Anyone, and I mean anyone can and SHOULD be able to write a book about anything and everything. It is one of the things this country was built upon, free speech. Many people believe in a black and white version of free speech where either it's all ok or none of it is, but whatever. The point I'm trying to make here is that the authors have every right to make this book, they have every right to sell it as is to the public and it is the publics responsibility to determine its worth, value and morality. If only specialists made books, very few books would ever get written and our knowledge base would decline because of how few books are written. For every one book like this one, there are at least a dozen that disclaim, disprove, or otherwise go against what it says and who's to say that the people couldn't have found those books and been like "hmm, maybe this book isn't all it's cracked up to be because of these other books/research/etc."
If your car runs out of gas, are you going to take it to a specialist to get it fixed or are you going to go to a gas station and buy a gas can? Did you know that a large chunk of computer problems can be fixed by simply restarting your computer? Are you going to take your computer to a specialist everytime it acts up or are you going to simply restart it? If you start coughing are you going to go see a doctor immediately or are you going to wait until you have other symptoms? Point being there isn't always a need for specialist.
On the topic of specialist, often they don't know any more about something than anyone else, but just claim to be a specialist. Doctors are wrong, teachers do not know all the answers, and lawyers often break the law in order to defend others.
Finally, people have been raising kids since the dawn of time and are still getting it wrong. I refuse to believe that there will ever be any "specialist" in this field.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Both I and the OP do say that both the parents and the authors should be blamed.
I understand you to be saying that, regardless of what the author wrote, the parents are responsible.I agree with that. I don't think anyone on this thread has said the parents should be let off. From the OP
I do believe that the parents who actually did the killing should be held responsibleThe question is, should the author also be considered responsible? Saying so in no way lessens the responsibility of the parents.
Why should the author be responsible for writing a book? No one held a gun to anyone's head to make them read said book. So the people who read the book made the choice to use the concepts and ideas inside it. No one made them do it, they chose to. Why should the author be responsible for the choices someone else made?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You right -- it's all about personal responsibility.
The responsibility to not put trash out on the streets and then say, "It's not my fault that someone took my advice."
It's the responsibility to not comment and write advice for something you obviously don't know anything about.
The responsibility to stop and think before you use methods for breaking (and there is a reason they use that word) mules for raising children.
To say the Pastor and his wife have no responsibility for their words and works is the same as saying the parents have no responsibility for their own.
It's still passing the buck -- saying, "Well he didn't have to follow my obviously bad advice" is just as much a cop out as saying, "Well he gave me really bad instructions."
The parents are wrong -- the pastor is wrong -- and anyone defending either group is wrong.
Personally responsibility cuts omni-directionally.
"Hey I just happened to say that if someone were to make a bomb following these instructions and place in this place and it went off that it wouldn't be a bad thing, it's not my fault that someone that looks up to me listened to my words and did exactly what I said."
Is not an excuse.
You right -- it's all about personal responsibility.
The responsibility to not put trash out on the streets and then say, "It's not my fault that someone took my advice."
It's the responsibility to not comment and write advice for something you obviously don't know anything about.
The responsibility to stop and think before you use methods for breaking (and there is a reason they use that word) mules for raising children.
To say the Pastor and his wife have no responsibility for their words and works is the same as saying the parents have no responsibility for their own.
It's still passing the buck -- saying, "Well he didn't have to follow my obviously bad advice" is just as much a cop out as saying, "Well he gave me really bad instructions."
The parents are wrong -- the pastor is wrong -- and anyone defending either group is wrong.
Personally responsibility cuts omni-directionally.
"Hey I just happened to say that if someone were to make a bomb following these instructions and place in this place and it went off that it wouldn't be a bad thing, it's not my fault that someone that looks up to me listened to my words and did exactly what I said."
Is not an excuse.
This is precisely my point. There is blame to go all around here.
You right -- it's all about personal responsibility.
The responsibility to not put trash out on the streets and then say, "It's not my fault that someone took my advice."
It's the responsibility to not comment and write advice for something you obviously don't know anything about.
The responsibility to stop and think before you use methods for breaking (and there is a reason they use that word) mules for raising children.
To say the Pastor and his wife have no responsibility for their words and works is the same as saying the parents have no responsibility for their own.
It's still passing the buck -- saying, "Well he didn't have to follow my obviously bad advice" is just as much a cop out as saying, "Well he gave me really bad instructions."
The parents are wrong -- the pastor is wrong -- and anyone defending either group is wrong.
Personally responsibility cuts omni-directionally.
"Hey I just happened to say that if someone were to make a bomb following these instructions and place in this place and it went off that it wouldn't be a bad thing, it's not my fault that someone that looks up to me listened to my words and did exactly what I said."
Is not an excuse.
This, this is what I was trying to say, thankyou
You right -- it's all about personal responsibility.
The responsibility to not put trash out on the streets and then say, "It's not my fault that someone took my advice."
It's the responsibility to not comment and write advice for something you obviously don't know anything about.
The responsibility to stop and think before you use methods for breaking (and there is a reason they use that word) mules for raising children.
To say the Pastor and his wife have no responsibility for their words and works is the same as saying the parents have no responsibility for their own.
It's still passing the buck -- saying, "Well he didn't have to follow my obviously bad advice" is just as much a cop out as saying, "Well he gave me really bad instructions."
The parents are wrong -- the pastor is wrong -- and anyone defending either group is wrong.
Personally responsibility cuts omni-directionally.
"Hey I just happened to say that if someone were to make a bomb following these instructions and place in this place and it went off that it wouldn't be a bad thing, it's not my fault that someone that looks up to me listened to my words and did exactly what I said."
Is not an excuse.
Great argument. And not that I want to see this continue on, but while what you say is great the reality is like what was said above "buyer beware". I think I see the divide between us. Should there be some blame put on them criminally? No, all the authors did was write a book, there is no law against that. Should they be sued for damages? Hell yes, they have a civic responsibility to not put out material that could potentially harm the public. I have been arguing the first question while everyone else was arguing the second. My mistake (Unless of course you believe they should be brought up on crinimal charges at which I'll have to disagree with you all over again). Free speech should be that, free. But as Spiderman is known to say "with great power comes great responsibility".
If they don't have the personal responsibility to realize that their words and works are hurting families and killing children then perhaps they shouldn't be writing books on how to do things.
Personally I think it's a grand con when you can con the person get them to perform criminal acts and then have someone else defend what you did as, "not your fault."
Of course it's their fault, they pulled a con. Realize that is exactly what their book is -- a con. If they actually believed what they wrote they would be standing by it not dodging responsibility for what has happened.
This isn't about civil damages -- this is about knowingly and willfully putting children's lives in danger. In all 50 states that in and of itself is a crime.
First amendment protects the pastor the same way it protects the guys who wrote the how to commit suicide and the anarchist’s handbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should the author be responsible for writing a book? No one held a gun to anyone's head to make them read said book. So the people who read the book made the choice to use the concepts and ideas inside it. No one made them do it, they chose to. Why should the author be responsible for the choices someone else made?
Who else is responsible for writing the book?
Promoting a criminal act can be a crime. Freedom of speech does not permit you to incite a riot with the intent of damaging property or hurting people.
Telling a crowd of people to hurt someone is criminal, it carries a 5 year federal prison sentence.
I'm a firm believer in the first amendment. Without the ability to speak freely, all other rights lose their value. Advocating violence that others follow through with though infringes on the rights of others. If you do something that infringes on another persons rights, that behavior cannot be allowed. Killing someone is the ultimate infringement of their rights.
What determines the authors culpability is how far they tell the parents to go and if that specifically resulted in the child's death. If the parents misinterpreted the book or took it too far, then the author is only at fault for bad advice, not criminal advice.
As for the pro's and con's of corporal punishment, most of the academic literature on the subject shows linkage with developmental, behavioral and mental disorders. Sometimes in specific cases the long term effects can be relatively minor, but by and large the consequences of corporal punishment have been found to be negative.
Seriously, people. Inciting riots is something you do in a specific, already dangerous, situation. That's nowhere near this. If people follow stupid advice, THEY are culpable. There will ALWAYS be stupid advice around. If you restrict this, there will be nothing to prevent massive censorship. We do NOT want author culpability or any sort of secondary responsibility as a precedent. It would be used on a scale ypu do not want to think about.
Also, let us consider the alternative. What do you say to the person who has followed every sort of advertisements he found these last weeks and now has no money? Will you agree to pay his bills with your taxes? Responsibility lies with the person acting, fully and utterly. Someone kills their children, punish them for it. Publishing stuff isn't punishable, but if you like him little enough, make a social campaign to spread the word of what he did.
|
Yes lets condemn this book we've never read and the people who wrote it based on what we're told from others, Why I feel that's how every book should be judged. The communist manifesto, the bible. From now on I'm not actually reading anything before deciding that the authors are personally responsible for the actions of those that read it. That Carl Marx was a monster who is directly responsible for the acts or Stalin. And those Luke, Mathew, and Moses guys need to be posthumously convicted for their role in bombing abortion clinics. After all, that's what other people who have read their books have told me.
For the record while i don't disavow corporal punishment, I do think there are limits that this book may push, but can't say for sure as I haven't read it. But I am opposed to trying to hold them responsible. We don't know that the people doing these things aren't taking things from the book and then taking them too far. Do we start blaming pharmaceutical companies when a medication that was supposed to be taken once every three hours kills someone because they took eight pills at once?
The right to Free Speach will not remove the possibility of being sued. The legal profession is unique in that it will likely test itself with difficult issues like this one. Xabulba points to the Anarchist' Cookbook and the Suicide Handbook as protective precedents. They are not. Cookbook clearly points out ways to kill another human being, there is little to confuse here, do this other guy dies. The Suicide Guidebook is not something I've read but, it pretty clearly sounds like it helps you commit a crime by giving you instruction in how to kill yourself. The result is death in both of these examples, not as an unintended consequence but as the primary objective of the subject matter.
I do not believe that the pastor or his wife or his publisher or the church, who likely allowed it's name to be included in the book, should be held to criminal responsibility. I do believe that all of the aforementioned parties will find themselves in civil court at some point, as is appropriate. This is what civil courts are for; to prevent morons from continuing to perpetrate harmful behaviors on the rest of society. The publisher likely has some legal protection in place, small print at the back of the book with a disclaimer to tiny to see without a magnifying glass. The author will not as it would have been up front in bold like Jackass or South Park. If it was the parents were even less competent than even we think them now.
McDonalds used to serve coffee so hot it would give you a third degree burn that required skin grafts to heal. It no longer does. One day this publisher will not print books on child development written by sadists. This is one of those cases where courts and most importantly a JURY will make things right.
|
|
once again glad we're ready to establish blame without a firm grasp of the subject matter.
This isn't you guys claiming that kim kardashian is an idiot. You guys are condemning a man for something he's written, and most likely used on his children, children who probably came out as productive, well adjusted adults, because someone took suggestions from the book and then upped them to 13, I doubt that the book espouses beating your child while starving him and locking him in a barn as a course of punishment. which from what I gathered is what the parents did.
When I was a kid I got spanked with a belt and a wooden spoon, but there were no bruises and my parents were never abusive. Would you say my parents bear responsibility if they tell me I should spank with a wooden spoon and then I beat my kid to within an inch of his life with the handle of the wooden spoon.
I'd have to read what the book says, and it probably does suggest things that are too extreme to do to a kid IMO, but is his idea of making a kid fast as a punishment sending him to bed without dinner or starving him for a week? I don't know and I'm not gonna make that call without reading the book. But what is probably the case is that this book has suggestions that idiots then took way to far. The responsibility is on the idiots, not the author. The only way that the author is responsible is if the book gives a step by step guide that when followed as the book describes, kills the kid. I don't think that's the case here as there are a lot of people who get this book and take its suggestions, and don't kill or abuse their children.
I've spanked the kids, unappologetically. I've never used anything other than my hand. A plumbing pipe, seriously? When I was kid I spent summers on a farm, I've seen horses broken in for riding. I imagine that mules are a quantum leap in difficulty. No method I've ever seen in training an animal is justifiable for a child. Nothing.
This matter really boils down to two things:
One: Is the pastor responsible for this? As he was the one directly responsible for the misinformation followed that caused the child's death, yes. He misrepresented bad advice as good advice and as the result someone died. He has a good deal of responsibility in this whole affair.
Two: Is the pastor legally culpable for this? No. The parents were not being forced to follow this advice, and there is not a law against writing a book, regardless of what the contents of the book are.
In conclusion: Pastor's a troll, child died because of it, hope he got his freakin' lulz out of what basically amounts to advocating child murder because I'm pretty sure nobody likes him now despite there being no actual legal recourse at the moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me propose an analogous situation:
I publish a book called A Field Guide to Edible Plants and Mushrooms, with photographs, where these things are found, and how to safely eat them. I market the book to wilderness camps, Boy Scout troops, etc. at a discount price, and millions of copies are sold.
The thing is, I included only lethal plants and mushrooms. Yes, that's right -- my "edible plants" guide informs you of the best way to find and eat enough monkshood and nightshade to kill an elephant. Fifteen boy scouts die on their annual jubilee, and hundreds more become dangerously ill, because of this handy field guide.
Now, "all I did is write a book," correct? So any surviving boy scouts should be held liable for attempted suicide, and the scoutmasters for mass murder, but I of course am totally blameless, right? It's all their fault for not being experts on wild plants to begin with, before using my book. Let the buyer beware! Suckers!!!
Freedom of speech is a cherished value. I believe it can be damaged and eventually eroded by these sorts of disengenuous attempts to use it as nothing but a convenient cover for blatantly sociopathic acts.
I still see a vast difference between "safe due to freedom of speech" and "idiots will be idiots" and what's happened here.
If I went to a mental health professional and he gave me bad advice and I followed it -- he's culpable.
If I get fiscal advice from someone in the fiscal industry and it's bad advice and I follow it they (could) be culpable.
If I go to a doctor or lawyer for health or legal advice and it's bad then they are potentially culpable.
If I go to someone claiming expertise in these fields follow their advice and it turns out they weren't the experts they claimed to be and gave me horrible advice they are rightly culpable.
This is exactly what these people claimed to be -- child raising experts and worthy of attention and who's advice should be followed. Their advice has killed people.
I find it hard to justify saying, "Well because they aren't actual experts or anything they are simply exercising their freedom of speech." When in fact they are claiming expert status and are purposefully misleading people about the value of their product.
What's more the people involved with this book are aware of the issues, and yet are making no changes to their manuscript or even admitting that their work could have any bearing on the cases (plural so this isn't a first time thing) and are still promoting themselves as people worthy of giving child raising advice.
|
There was a case that has some similar components to it:
Paraphrasing here - I remember awhile back a case where some WAR skins beat an Ethiopian immigrant to death. They had read some pamphlets which were distributed by a Klan group. I believe that the Southern Poverty Law center took the Klan (and Tom Metzger) to civil court and sued their group into bankruptcy due to their influence and instruction (written and verbal) that killing bootstomping/immigrants is a good idea.
So again, different circumstances but you have: instruction of (potential) criminal action and financial culpability.
|
|
once again glad we're ready to establish blame without a firm grasp of the subject matter.Yes, we should all go out and buy the book and maybe apply it's principles for a few years to test them, before daring to comment on a news story.
no we just shouldn't jump in saying yeah the guys an ass, he suggests things I would NEVER do to my kids (fasting), but that doesn't mean i think i know enough to say yeah he's partly responsible.
|
|
Let me propose an analogous situation:
I publish a book called A Field Guide to Edible Plants and Mushrooms, with photographs, where these things are found, and how to safely eat them. I market the book to wilderness camps, Boy Scout troops, etc. at a discount price, and millions of copies are sold.
The thing is, I included only lethal plants and mushrooms. Yes, that's right -- my "edible plants" guide informs you of the best way to find and eat enough monkshood and nightshade to kill an elephant. Fifteen boy scouts die on their annual jubilee, and hundreds more become dangerously ill, because of this handy field guide.
Now, "all I did is write a book," correct? So any surviving boy scouts should be held liable for attempted suicide, and the scoutmasters for mass murder, but I of course am totally blameless, right? It's all their fault for not being experts on wild plants to begin with, before using my book. Let the buyer beware! Suckers!!!
Freedom of speech is a cherished value. I believe it can be damaged and eventually eroded by these sorts of disengenuous attempts to use it as nothing but a convenient cover for blatantly sociopathic acts.
except that's probably not what happened, a better analogy is that one of those mushrooms you say can be edible if one or two are eaten at a time, and then a boyscout troop serves 200. So are you to blame?
in other words I doubt these parents were following the advice as given in the book and taking it to the extreme, buoyed by the fact that others have gotten and used this book and not killed their kids. Once again if you go to a doctor and the doctor advises you to take medication and you take 8 times the recomended dose, is the doctor culpable?
It's really hard to defend a book without actually reading it:
Like defending when it tells you to use a switch of willow or a 12 inch ruler on a child younger than one year old for getting angry and to keep at it until they stop getting angry and 'give into the pain.'
"Any spanking to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under one-year-old child, a small, ten-to twelve-inch-long willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a suitable substitute. For the larger child, a belt or a three-foot cutting off a shrub is effective."
Other reviews:
HereReview of the spiritual underpinnings of the book
Of course nothing is as good as reading it yourself:
Online
Please note the medical claims with no actual back up and complete lack of any proof of method.
All in all it's just Pavlow's Bell only as a rod or belt.
Did you know that playing D&D causes children to commit murder and suicide?
No, really, there were these kids that murdered some people and they found D&D books in their rooms.
Same with suicide.
The devil's in that game, I tell you.
It has instructions on how to cast spells, summon demons, and I hear it's all about how to kill people and rob their homes.
The guys who wrote this stuff should be sued/arrested and the books need to be burned.
The devil's in that game, I tell you.
It has instructions on how to cast spells, summon demons...
The main difference being that three separate sets of players are not on trial for using those instructions only to find that actual demons appeared. Even if they follow them too many times, or too avidly. Whereas at least three sets of parents are/have been on trial for following the Pearls' instructions a bit too enthusiastically and ending up with dead kids.
Likewise, the D&D books state up front that it's a fantasy game. The Pearls present themselves as child-rearing experts.
You're comparing apples and aardvarks.
|
|
It's really hard to defend a book without actually reading it:
Like defending when it tells you to use a switch of willow or a 12 inch ruler on a child younger than one year old for getting angry and to keep at it until they stop getting angry and 'give into the pain.'
"Any spanking to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under one-year-old child, a small, ten-to twelve-inch-long willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a suitable substitute. For the larger child, a belt or a three-foot cutting off a shrub is effective."Other reviews:
Here
Review of the spiritual underpinnings of the bookOf course nothing is as good as reading it yourself:
OnlinePlease note the medical claims with no actual back up and complete lack of any proof of method.
All in all it's just Pavlow's Bell only as a rod or belt.
You're right, and I followed some of your links and read excerpts from the book and I can say with 100% certainty that I don't agree with his methods which equate more to brainwashing. That said, I still do not believe he is responsible and hold to my earlier argument that the parents took what he offered and turned the dial up to eleven. That said, I would like to read more because what I have read does lead me to believe that they may in fact have given instructions that could lead to death (if the child doesn't break), but I didn't read passages confirming that so I don't know for sure.
I think this book may be on a razors edge where both sides who believe what they do are right, but as I said, I'm don't know enough to condemn.
The devil's in that game, I tell you.
It has instructions on how to cast spells, summon demons...The main difference being that three separate sets of players are not on trial for using those instructions only to find that actual demons appeared. Even if they follow them too many times, or too avidly. Whereas at least three sets of parents are/have been on trial for following the Pearls' instructions a bit too enthusiastically and ending up with dead kids.
Likewise, the D&D books state up front that it's a fantasy game. The Pearls present themselves as child-rearing experts.
You're comparing apples and aardvarks.
No, kids died. It was the (d&d/"child training") book's fault. apples=apples.
Nowehere in that book did it instruct the parents to beat their kids to death. In fact, in several places it speaks out against striking in anger, which is most likely what these parents did.
No, kids died. It was the (d&d/"child training") book's fault. apples=apples.Nowehere in that book did it instruct the parents to beat their kids to death. In fact, in several places it speaks out against striking in anger, which is most likely what these parents did.
It doesn't have anything that tells you how to cast spells or what not -- it has rules for a character to do so, and even specifically points out that it is a game -- not life instructions.
Where as the book in question here does in fact offer instruction.