1. Nowehere in that book did it instruct the parents to beat their kids to death.
2. In fact, in several places it speaks out against striking in anger, which is most likely what these parents did.
1. And yet when a number of people followed the instructions, kids ended up dead.
2. Speculation.If this had been the case of one isolated incident, I'd be totally with you. The fact that we see a pattern of child deaths in association with the book sort of makes one look at that common denominator and wonder if maybe, in this case, it is a causation rather than simply a correlation.
That was a bit of hyperbole on my part, more or less a paraphrase of the articles published about the "D&D deaths" back in the day. The linked article sounds almost exactly like the D&D articles- something bad happened, and we found these books in possession of the perpetrators.
The "D&D"-blamed death articles claimed that the game taught the players these things, drew them into occultism, etc., and blamed the game for the deaths.
I suggest that the parents in these cases were completely unfit, that following the prectices in this book did not and would not result in the death of their children, and that it was the parents themselves, as the ones who killed their kids, that are to blame. Furthermore, I think people blaming the book and its authors for these children's deaths are small minded and narrowvisioned.
All that said, I don't deny anyone's right to decide that the ideas presented in this book are troubling or even unnacceptable. But to say the book caused the deaths is even more troubling to me.
If this had been the case of one isolated incident, I'd be totally with you. The fact that we see a pattern of child deaths in association with the book sort of makes one look at that common denominator and wonder if maybe, in this case, it is a causation rather than simply a correlation.
Yeah, same thing happened with D&D books. More than one incident, must have been D&D's fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Yeah, same thing happened with D&D books. More than one incident, must have been D&D's fault.
See, I'm still looking for the part in the D&D books where it says (a) "This is Professional Advice on How to Live Your Life," and (b) where it tells you to commit suicide.
I CAN find the Pearls' claims (a) to be child-rearing experts, and (b) to withold food from kids and beat them with rubber hoses.
If you still see no difference, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, anyone who followed their advice -- especially those who did so a bit too avidly -- is guilty of abuse or maybe insanity. But publishing a "professional advice" book full of outright dangerous advice isn't something that should be lauded and applauded.
Clinical depression isn't a sufficient condition for suicide -- a successful attempt generally also requires (a) a means and (b) a lack of support/help. Handing a loaded firearm to a suicidal person isn't forcing them to commit suicide, but it is supplying a necessary condition. Likewise, being an easily-led religious zombie isn't a sufficient condition for killing kids through abuse. That also requires religious "leaders" who explain to them how to conduct the abuse, and a community that endorses the said "leader" and holds them blameless for any consequences.
Another issue is how the books deal with any criticism of their prescribed method, the 'evidence' cited is all anecdotal and the continued insistence throughout the book than any method but the presented method is wrong, wrong minded, and going to deal permanent damage to the children if not turn them into 'Nazis".
Thr3adcr4p until you address the fundamental differences between a game book that provides no instructions or advice on living life and a book on a specific topic by purported experts that also claim all other methods are wrong and not right with god you aren't going to get anywhere.
This book does several things:
1. It falsely presents its position as expert opinion.
2. It patently claims that its methods are the only way right by 'God' making it religious fraud as well.
3. It offers what is supposed to be expert instruction on an actual day to day activity and does so in such a way as leads to death if followed strictly.
Such claims cannot be proven about the D&D books.
[Yeah, same thing happened with D&D books. More than one incident, must have been D&D's fault.See, I'm still looking for the part in the D&D books where it says (a) "This is Professional Advice on How to Live Your Life," and (b) where it tells you to commit suicide.
I can find the Pearls' claims to (a) be child-rearing experts, and (b) to withold food from kids and beat them with rubber hoses.
Where does it say to leave you child naked in a barn for days at a time? Where does it say to whip your child for hours?
Where does it say to wrap your child in a blanket so tightly he suffocates to death?The book actually specifically tells you not to use confinement/ imprisonment as a form of discipline, as all it teaches your children is how to go to jail when they grow up.
So far all I've seen about witholding food is a section on witholding sweets to get a child to give up a diaper. I'll keep looking for the section it says to starve them to death.
3. It offers what is supposed to be expert instruction on an actual day to day activity and does so in such a way as leads to death if followed strictly.
Bull.
1. It falsely presents its position as expert opinion.
These truths are not new, deep insights from the professional world of research, rather, the same principles the Amish use to train their stubborn mules, the same technique God uses to train his children.
2. It patently claims that its methods are the only way right by 'God' making it religious fraud as well.
So, No, and yes.
670,000 copies in circulation, plus available on the internet for free. You'd think if the book was that dangerous, we'd have more than 3 deaths.
My point being, it's a lousy book, with poor anecdotes, badly skewed religious notions, an absolute certainty of self-contained morality, and some actual fine observances of how modern childrearing ideas also do not produce healthy happy children.
For all that, it's still caused fewer deaths than the bible, which fits all three of your bullet points above.
Copies sold do not equate into people following it or using it. I know people that buy bibles to use as toilet paper because it tickles their fancy.
How about instead you find some statistics on the number of people that followed the directions and then compare that as a ratio to the number of deaths?
Also your one quote from the book doesn't unsay everything else it says -- cherry picking is easy.
Also your one quote from the book doesn't unsay everything else it says -- cherry picking is easy.
Not really "cherry picking", when you quote the foreword of the book, you know, the place it states its intentions and qualifications. The first words that qualify the rest of the advice given.
And we both know your requested statistics don't exist.
See above edited post regarding bibles.
No they don't -- and for that reason your own argument that 670,000 copies existing proves it's not dangerous is one we can now automatically throw out. It's a red herring and didn't even begin to have a leg to stand on.
An easier question to answer is how many of those books have actually been sold to people instead of just distributors? It's been out since 1994 so I'm wondering how many print runs there have been.
So I'm joining this late, but: What exactly is being proposed? Some sort of criminal penalty or civil liability for the authors? Frankly, that makes me more than a little uneasy.
Cherry picking is what the article authors are doing regarding this book. You too. Pulling quotes regarding mules, tubing, rulers, etc.
Here's a nice cherry picked quote for you:
A CAUTION TO RECIPIENTS OF THE MILLSTONE AWARD
Spoiler:
There are always some who act in the extreme. Such could use what has been said about the legitimate use of the rod to justify ongoing brutality to their children. I can think of several right now. These abusers of their children would not in the least view themselves as such. They would call themselves "strong disciplinarians." "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt. 18:6)."FORMS OF ABUSE
Spoiler:
Only a few parents are categorically abusive. But, many parents sometimes give in to an abusive manner or employ abusive methods. The child is rebellious. The parent suddenly loses it and screams out. Like a whirlwind, the child is snatched up by the arm and given several bangs on the bottom. The parent's eyes burn. The brow hardens. The pulse rate soars. Anger is the best word to describe the feelings. Smash! Subdue! "You will do what I say. You are not going to do this to me little girl." Red faced, muscles tensed. Anyone looking on the face of the parent would think there was a war on.The rod should not be a vent for the parent's anger. In the daily run of life, many people generally experience anger and feel the need to strike out. There is no place for that selfish vindictive streak in the discipline of children. Where the child's good is not the supreme motivation, there will be problems.
I am ashamed to say that, in most cases, the rod is administered at the end of an intolerance curve. The average parents (Average parents end up with average children--the wrong end of the scale) are quite predictable in their "discipline" reactions. They go through several "warm-up" exercises to become sufficiently angry to generate retaliation against the child.
See, I find it incredulous that you would say that this book being followed leads to childrens' deaths. The means of the three children's deaths were not anything advocated in this book. So this does strike me as a teenager's suicide by gun being blamed on D&D. The blame has nothing to do with reality. The deaths happened when the parents went beyond the boundaries specifically set forth in the book. The book doesn't say "If they don't respond to the rod, get a staff to strike them with."
So I'm joining this late, but: What exactly is being proposed? Some sort of criminal penalty or civil liability for the authors? Frankly, that makes me more than a little uneasy.
I'd propose this: advocation of illegal or life-threatening acts under the guise of professional advice is a no-no.
You wouldn't be able to publish a book called "How To File Your Tax Return," sign it "Herschel Silverblatt, CPA," and advocate, through pages of what to do on the return forms, a course of action that actually constitutes tax fraud. You wouldn't be allowed to publish a "Field Guide to Edible Plants and Mushrooms" that just points out the poisonous ones (to Thr3adcr4p: yes, even if they only make you sick if you don't eat too many of them). You wouldn't be allowed to publish a book on child rearing that advocates abuse (even if it only kills them if you overdo it).
You wouldn't be allowed to publish a book on child rearing that advocates abuse.
This book speaks out against abuse. In several places. It also considers some modern methods of child rearing (time outs, bargaining/rationalizing, etc.)to be abuse. It speaks about using a specific methodology of training children that involves corporal punishment.
Is there any form of corporal punishment, in your view, which is not abuse? [EDIT: Genuine question, not intended as snark or strawman.]
Whether or not one is a CPA is objective. Whether a plant is poisonous to the majority of the population -- also objective. Exactly what constitutes abuse is often subjective. Is beating children to death abuse? Of course it is -- but I don't believe that the book advocates that.
Also, what is a "no-no," and how would it be enforced?
I would personally err on the side of the first amendment in this case.
Is there any form of corporal punishment, in your view, which is not abuse? [EDIT: Genuine question, not intended as snark or strawman.]
Understood, and actually, yes, there is. I was spanked as a kid (maybe twice, total); a hard swat on the butt, to me, is a way of telling the child: "Pay attention for a minute. This is really, really important -- enough so for me to jeapardize our existing relationship over it." For this to have any meaningful effect, the child must be old enough to actually understand this -- so spanking a 4-month-old is obviously a no-no. It also must be a last resort. If you have to do it more than once or twice, I would think it would lose any useful effect and quickly become a pattern of what I would term abuse.
I got the belt once -- not for what I originally did, but for lying about it to try and get out of it. It was a valuable lesson for which I'm grateful. The old man didn't count to 10 amid Bible verses; one whack made the point abundantly clear (it was an especially clear point because he made me go down the hall and fetch the belt in question, IIRC). No real harm was done, but a lot of good was accomplished.
On the flip side, things like the use of rubber hoses -- specifically used in corrupt police "interrogations" because they don't leave marks (and advocated for the same reason by the Pearls) -- is over the line, in my estimation. Likewise, corporal punishment for kids too young to know what they're doing, or for having a vague "sinful nature," are both totally outside the pale.
Is there any form of corporal punishment, in your view, which is not abuse? [EDIT: Genuine question, not intended as snark or strawman.]Actually, yes, there is. I was spanked as a kid; a hard swat on the butt, to me, is a way of telling the child: "Pay attention for a minute. This is important." For this to have any meaningful effect, the child must be old enough to actually do so -- so spanking a 4-month-old is obviously a no-no.
I got the belt once -- not for what I originally did, but for lying about it to try and get out of it. It was a valuable lesson for which I'm grateful. The old man didn't count to 10 amid Bible verses; a couple of whacks made the point abundantly clear. No real harm was done, but a lot of good was accomplished.
On the flip side, things like the use of rubber hoses -- specifically used in corrupt poilce "interrogations" because they don't leave marks (and advocated for the same reason by the Pearls) -- is over the line, in my estimation.
See, that was my experience both growing up and raising my daughter as well. Pretty much, all my dad had to do is tell me to do something and it was done. I only remember one time with a belt, but don't recall the circumstances. I'd say I was never spanked past six or seven years old, but rather had learned to be obedient. Similar technique was used raising my daughter (and I never spanked her with any object other than my hand.)
This kind of environment seems to be what the Pearl's book is aiming for. I think it misses the mark on several levels, including the instrumentality/objects and the earliness of the recommended training (pre-cognitive/associative training- as early as six months? Woah!) But in no way do I agree that this book is in any way advocating abusive parenting nor encouraging the types of actions that led to these childrens' deaths. Additionally, I think blaming these specific childrens' deaths on the Pearls' book is scapegoating at its finest. To say that the parents were only following the instructions in this book and that led to the deaths is an outright lie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it misses the mark on several levels, including the instrumentality/objects and the earliness of the recommended training (pre-cognitive/associative training- as early as six months? Woah!) But in no way do I agree that this book is in any way advocating abusive parenting nor encouraging the types of actions that led to these childrens' deaths.
I think the advocation of corporal punishment on kids who have no idea what they've done wrong -- and especially the recommendation of tools that allow significant damage to be inflicted on repeated occasions without leaving telltale signs for the police or child protective authorities (and eventually death, as we've seen) -- essentially make this a manual on how to abuse a kid. In short, they far outweigh whatever useful messages might also be included.
So I'm joining this late, but: What exactly is being proposed? Some sort of criminal penalty or civil liability for the authors? Frankly, that makes me more than a little uneasy.
That would be the ironic just reward wouldn't it?
But no -- I think that there should be a process for vetting advice books on certain topics: Child raising, rocket science, nuclear warheads, building guns at home, cooking with toxic chemicals (yes I realize most this list is hyperbole), etc.
I think the same should be the case of health advice, fiscal advice, and products sold to help you lose weight and it shouldn't be covered a small blurb in the bottom corner in type that can't be read that basically states that, "We don't actually know what we are saying and none of this is actually likely to be caused or promoted by the product we are selling you, use at your own risk, buyer beware."
I think that should such standards should also help cover and protect from some levels of legal trouble too.
The problem of course is setting up the vetting system in such a way as doesn't stifle new ideas, but doesn't become a rubber stamp either.
Honestly I do think the authors in this case are potentially liable for a lot of legal trouble -- the book is inexpertly written and done in such a way that leaves them open for trouble.
The question (to me) isn't if they are open for such issues but if their lawyer is slick enough to keep get them out of trouble.
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.
This is my final thought on this topic. I agree with the above poster and had even said as so. The criminal acts in this case are in the hands of the parents who "followed" the book. As far as blame goes, this is a civil matter and no amount of arguing will change that. You cannot charge the authors of the book for having a book published, regardless if they claim to be "experts". Anyone who has successfully completed anything can claim to be an "expert" in that field, but it obviously doesn't make it so. Also, it seems to me that several people are not wanting to view the whole picture. They are wanting to condemn the authors for the concept of what they wrote about rather than the actual content. As someone else pointed out above, they do not advocate using their methods in anger, which often times leads to abuse in any situation. I do not personally agree with their methods. But who am I to say that they do not have the right to make a book claiming to be "experts" in the field? All written material can be interpreted in many ways. Take the bible for instance. There are a group of people who believe that the bible says without a doubt that being homosexual is evil and to prove this point they are protesting Military funerals. That is something I cannot even begin to fathom how wrong it is, but they have every right in this country to do so. And lord help me but I will fight to the death to protect that right.
JMD out.
All that said, I don't deny anyone's right to decide that the ideas presented in this book are troubling or even unnacceptable. But to say the book caused the deaths is even more troubling to me.
Which is why since I earlier didn't read parts of the book I wasn't fully ready to make that claim. I do think it is possible for someone to be criminally responsible for the words they write if they intend for their information to be used in a criminal manner.
I actually expected the authors to not be responsible in this instance, unless they advocated leaving children outside, naked, regardless of temperature, for hours at a time.
The difficulty part (and it should be) of limiting speech is proving intent. If your intent is to use speech to cause people harm by inciting others to do it, you should be responsible for what they do. If they go beyond what you said to do, I think your responsibility starts to diminish quickly though.
It doesn't seem like the intent of this book is to kill children. The instructions recommend limits and reasons to not use the methods. While I disagree with those methods, they themselves are not criminal.
There are several reasons why I disagree with the use of corporal punishment in general. First, if I were your boss and I tried to use corporal punishment on you at work, I'd either go to jail or lose a very big civil suit. If we don't find it acceptable behavior in normal civil society, I don't see a lot of justification for it in the home.
Severe physical punishment (that doesn't qualify as abuse) is linked to behavioral and mental problems in children, particularly males of school age or older. The most common is increased aggression. The problem then is how to define the difference between severe and moderate and the difference between severe and abuse.
I don't hit my coworkers. I don't hit my friends. I don't hit any other loved ones, even when I think they're doing something wrong. I don't have any children, but if I did, I imagine I would love them more than all of these other people. Not only that, but I would be responsible for their health, safety and well-being. I fail to see how that gives me the right or responsibility to hit them in any way, shape or form.
Children are human beings. They deserve at least as much protection as adults, if not more.
I actually expected the authors to not be responsible in this instance, unless they advocated leaving children outside, naked, regardless of temperature, for hours at a time.
But for just one hour is OK.
I actually expected the authors to not be responsible in this instance, unless they advocated leaving children outside, naked, regardless of temperature, for hours at a time.But for just one hour is OK.
Can you point to the passage in the book? If you can I'd be very interested. Leaving someone outside in -10 degree weather naked for one hour can kill them. So if they advocate that, that's extremely negligent. At the moment though, I highly doubt they specifically tell you to put your child outside naked, no matter how cold it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if we are going to go into author culpability and secondary responsibility, the FIRST book we seriously need to get rid of is the Bible. Billions of people consider it a good guide to how you should live your life. It has the support of a massive organization that actively promotes it. It makes absolutely toxic claims, such as commanding you to kill your neighbor if he were to work on the sabbat, or a hundred different situations. It even directly tells you that there are many situations where you need to kill your own child, if you aim to be a good person.
No, I suppose there is a reason why the concept of author culpability is not very popular among the loudest choir for morals and censorship.
Oh, right. I just realized that the Bible must be THE #1 book existing in the homes of suicides...
Invoking B.A.D.D. In relation to Pastor Pearls is nuts. The woman that founded BADD was raging against the death of her son, she sought out anyone to blame and settled on TSR. She successfully launched an attack campaign in the media that did not abate even after psychologists found her refusal to acknowledge her son's depression a component of his eventual suicide. My understanding is that every attempt to sue TSR on this front failed, primarily due to the fact that no legitimate behavioral psychologist would back a suit.
The Pastor was not producing a game, a work of fiction or any product that could be construed as art. Art is important as freedom of expression is the foundation of free Speach. To misrepresent ideas in what is an informative or scholarly text is very different and does not get blanket 1st amendment protection.
Unless you're going to haul rush limbaugh off to jail for some of the stuff he says you can't charge these authors with anything, especially without a more direct "The book says x" and "x lead to the death of a kid" connection.
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.
While I respect and agree with you for the most part, I do believe that there are mistakes made by children that DO warrant a spanking. Such as when playing with matches and starting a fire in an inappropriate setting...say in or around a home where the potential to hurt others is fairly likely when it gets out of control. In that type of situation, talking is in insufficient. I speak from personal experience. I played with matches twice as a child, once when I was 5 and once when I was 6. The first time I burned down a tree in my backyard. Got yelled at a lot, grounded, and toys taken from me. The second time, I set fire to an old suitcase filled with leaves on my grandmothers porch. The fire got extinguished before it spread beyond the porch. That time, I got the switch from my grandmother and the belt from my father. I never played with matches again after that. If any of my children play with matches, there will be a lecture followed by a spanking. I hope it never happens. BUt if it does, i know how I will proceed.
Unless you're going to haul rush limbaugh off to jail for some of the stuff he says you can't charge these authors with anything, especially without a more direct "The book says x" and "x lead to the death of a kid" connection.
Rush Limbaugh gets a pass because all of his stuff is fiction anyways.
Well, if we are going to go into author culpability and secondary responsibility, the FIRST book we seriously need to get rid of is the Bible. Billions of people consider it a good guide to how you should live your life. It has the support of a massive organization that actively promotes it. It makes absolutely toxic claims, such as commanding you to kill your neighbor if he were to work on the sabbat, or a hundred different situations. It even directly tells you that there are many situations where you need to kill your own child, if you aim to be a good person.
No, I suppose there is a reason why the concept of author culpability is not very popular among the loudest choir for morals and censorship.
Oh, right. I just realized that the Bible must be THE #1 book existing in the homes of suicides...
Actually, the bible doesn't actually instruct people to do any of that. Preachers do. Most people don't actually know what the bible says. I've actually read the bible. God didn't write the bible, the bible was written by hundreds of people that were interpreting history and God's will. The bible is actually just a collection of stories and history, for those who've read it. This is why Christianity is so criticized, because they quote stuff out of context and say it's God's words. What happens is that the stories and histories are interpreted by preachers into instructions. No different actually how you're interpreting it.
It's not a guide, but that's how millions view it for some reason though they've never actually read it and have someone else churn it out (as instructions). The bible doesn't actually say anywhere on it, "These are instructions on how to live your life".
|
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."
Many of you are too young to remember the problems us old guys had about this very game. Parents were told that because of the game their children would follow in the footsteps of their characters and do all sorts of things such as witchcraft and devil worship.
Holding the author of this book responsible is no different than holding the creators of Dungeons and Dragons responsible for all the worlds problems.
As much as I find his book tasteless and just plain stupid, we can't hold him responsible.
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."
Many of you are too young to remember the problems us old guys had about this very game. Parents were told that because of the game their children would follow in the footsteps of their characters and do all sorts of things such as witchcraft and devil worship.
Holding the author of this book responsible is no different than holding the creators of Dungeons and Dragons responsible for all the worlds problems.
As much as I find his book tasteless and just plain stupid, we can't hold him responsible.
The difference is vast and we've already been over this point, which still doesn't hold up.
Back when I worked in a bookstore, there were a number of people that would come looking for this book. It was a large chain, and there was demand, so we sold it. A local pastor was hawking it to his (conservative) congregation as a "way to get away with beating your kids" (he interpreted the spare the rod thing as a commandment - you needed to do it frequently on an arbitrary basis - not setting things on fire, but for insubordination or being noisy, for instance).
This made me very uncomfortable for personal reasons, so I would have someone else handle finding it for them. It was particularly disturbing to get it for some guy who was with his family, including small children. Same with the Holocaust denial books, particularly if they wanted to "convert" me to their position.
I'm a (children's) librarian now, or at least qualified to be one. If a book like this was being requested I'd have to consider shelving it or exploring why we wouldn't, since the parenting section is usually handled by children's staff. But I also tend to feel that - with library resources being limited - that part of the discretion of the librarian is acquiring material that actually doesn't harm people. I wouldn't get a book that's deceptive or inaccurate that children might use for school, or a book that encourages mistreatment of others. That kind of thing might be purchased if it's in the news, but a librarian better be ready to present an opposing view. But then again, I consider librarianship an educational job. It's not altogether neutral - particularly in regard to facts like the psychological consequences of brutal beatings on children.
|
Well, if we are going to go into author culpability and secondary responsibility, the FIRST book we seriously need to get rid of is the Bible. Billions of people consider it a good guide to how you should live your life. It has the support of a massive organization that actively promotes it. It makes absolutely toxic claims, such as commanding you to kill your neighbor if he were to work on the sabbat, or a hundred different situations. It even directly tells you that there are many situations where you need to kill your own child, if you aim to be a good person.
No, I suppose there is a reason why the concept of author culpability is not very popular among the loudest choir for morals and censorship.
Oh, right. I just realized that the Bible must be THE #1 book existing in the homes of suicides...
Actually, the bible doesn't actually instruct people to do any of that. Preachers do. Most people don't actually know what the bible says. I've actually read the bible. God didn't write the bible, the bible was written by hundreds of people that were interpreting history and God's will. The bible is actually just a collection of stories and history, for those who've read it. This is why Christianity is so criticized, because they quote stuff out of context and say it's God's words. What happens is that the stories and histories are interpreted by preachers into instructions. No different actually how you're interpreting it.
|
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.
This line of "reasoning" reminds me of this.
Otherwise, I got nothing to add. (Actually, I have a lot to add -- just not anything that would be considered helpful at this point.)
|
|
... FIRST book we seriously need to get rid of is the Bible..., such as commanding you to kill your neighbor if he were to work on the sabbat... It even directly tells you that there are many situations where you need to kill your own child, if you aim to be a good person...
References please. Otherwise, absolutely not helpful.
threadjacking about word of god and parablesActually, the bible doesn't actually instruct people to do any of that. Preachers do. Most people don't actually know what the bible says. I've actually read the bible. God didn't write the bible, the bible was written by hundreds of people that were interpreting history and God's will. The bible is actually just a collection of stories and history, for those who've read it. This is why Christianity is so criticized, because they quote stuff out of context and say it's God's words. What happens is that the stories and histories are interpreted by preachers into instructions. No different actually how you're interpreting it.Well, if we are going to go into author culpability and secondary responsibility, the FIRST book we seriously need to get rid of is the Bible. Billions of people consider it a good guide to how you should live your life. It has the support of a massive organization that actively promotes it. It makes absolutely toxic claims, such as commanding you to kill your neighbor if he were to work on the sabbat, or a hundred different situations. It even directly tells you that there are many situations where you need to kill your own child, if you aim to be a good person.
No, I suppose there is a reason why the concept of author culpability is not very popular among the loudest choir for morals and censorship.
Oh, right. I just realized that the Bible must be THE #1 book existing in the homes of suicides...
So Jesus is like the Nostradamus of religion?
It would explain all the doing stuff then turning around and searching for that one quote that totally backs up your interpretation of the rules.
...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...
Can we get a source? This is completely unbelievable and sounds like a repackaging of this antifreeze poisoning story.
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."
Many of you are too young to remember the problems us old guys had about this very game. Parents were told that because of the game their children would follow in the footsteps of their characters and do all sorts of things such as witchcraft and devil worship.
Holding the author of this book responsible is no different than holding the creators of Dungeons and Dragons responsible for all the worlds problems.
As much as I find his book tasteless and just plain stupid, we can't hold him responsible.
Many of you are too young to remember when we laid out the differences between the two scenarios in some detail yesterday. So you won't recall the Field Guide to Edible Plants and Mushrooms depicting all the poisonous ones as safe. But the book never told anyone to eat any plants until they died, so for anyone who took more than a nibble, it's all 100% their fault.
stuff
So, are we going to burn all books describing ancient laws and their societies, or just the Bible?
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."
Many of you are too young to remember the problems us old guys had about this very game. Parents were told that because of the game their children would follow in the footsteps of their characters and do all sorts of things such as witchcraft and devil worship.
Holding the author of this book responsible is no different than holding the creators of Dungeons and Dragons responsible for all the worlds problems.
As much as I find his book tasteless and just plain stupid, we can't hold him responsible.
This has already been mentioned. It's a poor argument IMO. Please read some of the responses and other discussion points.
Many of you are too young to remember when we laid out the differences between the two scenarios in some detail yesterday. So you won't recall the Field Guide to Edible Plants and Mushrooms depicting all the poisonous ones as safe. But the book never told anyone to eat any plants until they died, so for anyone who took more than a nibble, it's all 100% their fault.
Kirth, your fallacious argument is getting tired at this juncture of repetativeness.
Honestly, what specifically in this book is the equivelent of your poison mushrooms that claims to be safe but is so deadly? What methodology in this book directly led to the death of these three children? Please quote from the book you claim is full of "poison" described as "perfectly safe to eat."
Citations needed. From the source.
You have come up with a false scenario, full of hyperbole, and created a strawman from that example. Then you hammer anyone who disagrees over and over with this crazy scenario.
We remember the discussion, we just think your example is rediculous, and not at all related to the actual cases described.
...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...Can we get a source? This is completely unbelievable and sounds like a repackaging of this antifreeze poisoning story.
College professor of mine told that one to me. Unfortunately he's dead, so....
Edit: As a further aside, the story was about back in the day cough syrup tasted nastier than it does today. The main ingredient in cough syrup being Tussin. Some guy, not sure of his name it was years ago I heard this, thought that it would be a good idea to develop a sweet tasting cough syrup and messed with the chemical formula. He came up with something and marketed it as a children's cough syrup. A few months later, it turned out that what he came up with was poisonous and several kids died from using it. The guy himself, distraught by all this committed suicide, but someone later determined that the product he came up with made for a good engine coolant and thus antifreeze was discovered. This was told to me by a psychology professor, so the reliability may not be all that high.
Further edit:
Seventy years ago, medicine laced with diethylene glycol killed more than 100 people in the United States, leading to the passage of the toughest drug regulations of that era and the creation of the modern Food and Drug Administration.
This may have been what he was talking about. I heard this in 1999 and the way he was talking about it was like it happened several years in the past.
I'm so going to google alert this author and see if he has a follow up on forum trolls. First day buyer.
Honestly, what specifically in this book is the equivelent of your poison mushrooms that claims to be safe but is so deadly? What methodology in this book directly led to the death of these three children? Please quote from the book you claim is full of "poison" described as "perfectly safe to eat."
It’s a good spanking instrument. It’s too light to cause damage to the muscle or the bone.
This latter is from a direct interview with the NY Times; Pearls is referring to the rubber hose which is advocated in the book (as his "favored instrument of punishment," no less). He adds on his "No Greater Joy" web site:
A plumber’s supply line is a good spanking tool. You can get it at Wal-Mart or any hardware store. Ask for a plastic, 1/4-inch, supply line. They come in different lengths and several colors; so you can have a designer rod to your own taste.
If your copy of the book has had all references to this instrument removed, say so now, as we are apparently not discussing the same advice.
Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz whipped their 7-year-old child Lydia to death with exactly that item (and Lydia's 11-year-old sister was hospitalized from same). Because while a hose leaves no marks on the surface, and probably won't break bones, it can cause kidney failure through rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle tissue that can fatally damage vital organs. This reality is of course directly contrary to Pearls' claim that "it's too light to cause damage to the muscle."
Your claim was not that whipping with a hose isn't dangerous, as evidenced by your statement, "I think it misses the mark on several levels, including the instrumentality/objects." So you seemed to agree that the hose was potentially dangerous (or at least very ill-advised), but you added that the book doesn't instruct you to actually beat them to death with it. That much is true -- and would be exactly analogous to me telling you it's okay to eat some poisonous mushrooms because I don't tell you to eat enough of them to kill you. There is nothing fallacious there; it's direct 1:1 correspondence.
Beating kids with a hose is harmful to them. There is no reason in the world that a spanking cannot be administered with an open hand; nor is there any reason to strike a child other than on their padded posterior.
Apparently you've now done a 180 and decided that beating kids with a hose is OK and can't really hurt them, "as long as you don't do it too much." (How much is that, exactly?). I very strongly disagree that it's OK, no matter how much or how little you do it.
I am not anti-spanking. I am very much anti-beating-with-hoses.
If God’s love is expressed by the “whippings” He gives, then can we not love our children enough to chasten them unto holiness? I have heard a rebellious teenager say, “If they only loved me enough to whip me.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thoughts from a Christian who practices corporal punishment:
Corporal punishment, used wisely and with restraint, works. Kids grow up smart and well-adjusted. Corporal punishment is not abuse, intrinsically.
Any parent that starves their kids for days, leaves them in a cold barn, etc, is an abuser. There are no biblical justifications for the kinds of nonsense found in the original article. The parents are murderers and 100% responsible for the reprehensible behavior that led to the deaths of these kids. Of course, death isn't necessary for this behavior to be barbaric and ineffectual.
No one practicing these methods understands nor practices Christianity. At no time did "do not spare the rod" mean "hurt them until you can't lift your arm and they can't sit down".
I won't judge the guilt of the Pearls because I hardly trust a single article to represent the book accurately. If the parents were following actual, literal advice from the book, the authors are not criminally responsible, but they are morons and ought to be publicly humiliated so that no one gets the book thinking there's any wisdom in it. If they treat their own children that way, they are criminally responsible for any abusive acts.
This issue and the behavior of a few dill weeds that used DnD as a framework for their crimes and otherise pathetic lives have not one thing to do with one another. The DnD dill weeds placed their desire for violence into a book that clearly does not pretend to give advice on spirituality or magic or anysuch. The Pearls pretend to know something about raising children, and offer advice that they intend to be emulated. If suppositions about the book are accurate, they belong in the same camp as the Westboro Baptist Church - angry malcontents that use religion to engage in behavior that is either criminal or merely reprehensible.
We ought not, under any circumstance, regulate self-help books as if some government authority can claim expertise on every matter that may or may not be advised upon, and judge the worthiness of that advice. On the grander scale, such behavior as this is naturally censored by the market place of ideas. The book made the news, the abusive parents went to jail, and the victims are born to Heaven by virtue of their childhood innocence. And I believe any murder of a child at the hands of an abuser merits the death penalty.
And if you don't believe in Heaven, you should. ;)
Sincere thanks for your post, AS -- well-reasoned, from the heart, full of restraint, and devoid of preachy stuff until the last sentence. The right-wing stuff about a "marketplace of ideas" magically correcting things is something I disagree with -- but that's only because I have a more cynical view of human stupidity than you do.
It's nice to be able to disagree with specific minutia but agree overall.
Thoughts from a Christian who practices corporal punishment:
Corporal punishment, used wisely and with restraint, works. Kids grow up smart and well-adjusted. Corporal punishment is not abuse, intrinsically.
I'm just curious, what is the logic for corporal punishment with your children? If you remove the fact that they are your children, would the logic hold up in any other situation?
For example, lets say you're a supervisor at an office and an office assistant comes in late. Do you bend them over and spank them so that they learn their lesson? Would you accept that kind of punishment if you were on the receiving end?
A friend of mine does work using Applied Behavioral Analysis to help autistic kids. Mind you, they have these relatively large teams of people helping the family out, essentially the kid is accompanied by a trained psychologist 5 days a week, they have planning meetings with the family and help train them as well. 29% of their kids, who are dealing with autism, are able to go to school by the age of 7 with no further assistance. Another 52% are able to go to regular school with some form of assistance.
Autism has to be one of the most difficult behavioral problems to deal with. They have impaired social and communication skills. Yet they're able to get through to these kids and help them live normal lives. They also do this without corporal punishment.
If autism can be dealt with without using physical violence, I really can't imagine any other behavioral problem being so severe that requires it's use.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
With respect, Irontruth, I think the assertion regarding autistic spectrum kids is inappropriate. Nothing about autistic kids relates to my parenting healthy, well-adjusted kids. It might well be that you can't have spanking in your arsenal for anyone BUT normal healthy kids.
Certainly the rationale does NOT apply to non-family members. If the sperm donor of the oldest three spanked one of the kids, I'd probably turn him over my knee. I'm not much for corporal punishment in schools, either, because I don't trust teachers and bureaucrats. One of the grandparents, maybe.
I am not gonna pretend to be some parenting guru and explain why spanking works for all kids. In our house, spanking is rare and (for the most part) carefully considered and regulated. It is me that is saying so, but I don't know anyone that disagrees: my kids have strong character, are well behaved in public, and are as respectful as anyone else's kids. The role of corporal punishment in our house is consistent and has raised good kids that I am proud of. I am not sure if we went back in time and changed to no spanking we'd get any better results. Looking across a large number of studies, conversations and personal observations, and having friends and relatives with kids, I find myself generally only willing to evaluate my own parenting skills as spanking goes. Some families never spank and their kids are self-entitled dill weeds with zero discipline or respect. Some kids are great kids with wacked out parents who don't bother trying anything else.
So spanking, as we do it with our kids, works and has had fantastic end results. I felt when I was growing up that my own punishments were sometimes severe and reactionary, but then I turned out pretty well and have a good relationship with my parents. I am not going to tell you every family should be like mine and every dad should be like me.
Although as fairly strict under-appreciated step-dads go, I am pretty freaking cool.
EDIT: Also, we spank big time for lying. You DO NOT want to tell a lie in this house. Much better to tell the truth about your profound lapse in judgment and take the boring lecture and grounding.