To Train Up A Child

[1still_waters]

To Train Up a Child Parenting Book Leads to Multiple Child Deaths | Babble

This and some others I read were enough to convince me that this book should be pulled. I have two children and I don't hit them either. I'm not going to beat my kids into being the person I think or want them to be.

Ok that news story is full of assertions about the book, and tells horror stories of people who supposedly read the book and did bad stuff.

Again, humans have been known to read, misinterpret, missapply, and do bad stuff.
That doesn't automatically make the book bad.

All it takes apparently for people to believe truth claims is assertions, mixed with horror stories, minus any contextual proof.

Sad day we live in.

 

[1still_waters]

I've seen this quote used in relation how to treat a child bully. There seems to be offense because the term Nazi is used. Notice the quote, then notice the news stories I'll provide about what bullies have done.

"Picture a child of any age who is miserable, complaining, and a bully to other kids…. Fail to use the rod on this child, and you are creating a modern-day “Nazi.” After a short explanation about bad attitudes and the need to love, patiently and calmly apply the rod to his backside. Somehow, after eight or 10 licks, the poison is transformed into gushing love and contentment. The world becomes a beautiful place. A brand-new child emerges."

[h=1]Teen Accused of “Knockout Game” Attack at Hamden High School[/h]http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Teen-Accused-of-Knockout-Game-Attack-at-Hamden-High-School--233644131.html

Police said a 15-year-old student ran toward a senior who was walking in the hallway and punched him under the eye.

[h=1]Knockout game: Teens’ punches turn deadly in US[/h]http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-11-24/us/44412345_1_someone-jersey-city-similar-attacks

[h=1]Coroner warns of dangers of Facebook after student, 19, targeted by young women bullies online hanged himself[/h]

And all the headlines about bullying leading to suicide.

Yes if you don't discipline bullies, they do turn Nazi like. Sorry, not a PC term, but it's the truth.

I still have to read through all of the info Nautilus posted.
But seeing this quote used over and over, as a sign of the book's evilness, really makes me question those making negative claims against the book.
​

 

[1still_waters]

Nautilus I read your first evidence piece.
It's still insufficient evidence to me.
It seems to be a series of assertions, backed up by a brief word snippet, or series of words. The snippets appeared conjectured. Here is one example.

p.7 If a child screams or cries “Just ignore him. Don’t be moved by it. Don’t pick him up.” If the child says he is hurt give him “a terrible tasting herbal potion.” p.9

What's the context?
Yes on the surface it looks bad to say just ignore a screaming child.
But what is the context?

Is the context about putting a child to bed for the 50th time at night because he keeps carrying on and on? If the kid is screaming, and claiming to be hurt, just as a way to keep from going to sleep, is a parent to keep running into the room every time a noise is made? What if the only way to break that is to let him keep on making noise, so he learns you can't be manipulated?

See when we aren't given contextual proof, and are just given negative assertions with bad sounding snippets that appear to support said negative assertions, we're left wondering who is saying what.

Contextual evidence is important.

If the context of the above is in the context of telling parents to ignore their kids if they're truly hurt, and hungry, then we got serious issues. But if the context is in the context of telling parents to ignore lil johnny who won't go to bed, who is trying to emotionally manipulate you through crying/screaming/claims to be hurt, then the author has a point. But we just don't know which is which, because NO ONE will give contextual proof, surrounding paragraph proof, or forbid, actual page length proof.

People are so quick to believe a negative assertion. All it seems to take to get agreement is to

1. Make said claim
2. Give non-contextual snippets of mean sounding words,
3. Get horror stories of people who claimed to have read it but who may have actually misread and misapplied it.
4. Get people to agree that said assertions are bad.
5. Once enough people hop on and agree said assertions are bad, claim the assertions are true because so many people say so.

Who cares about providing contextual proof to validate said claims, when doing the above is sooo much easier?

 

[Stephen63]

People are so quick to believe a negative assertion. All it seems to take to get agreement is to

1. Make said claim
2. Give non-contextual snippets of mean sounding words,
3. Get horror stories of people who claimed to have read it but who may have actually misread and misapplied it.
4. Get people to agree that said assertions are bad.
5. Once enough people hop on and agree said assertions are bad, claim the assertions are true because so many people say so.

Who cares about providing contextual proof to validate said claims, when doing the above is sooo much easier?

I've seen this 5 step program many, many times. I would be first in line to agree with Stilly...... He really knows his stuff about this.

 

[mystdancer50]

Again, WHERE is the evidence to support what you said?

Is it true just because you asserted he said that stuff?

Where are the interviews you speak of?

Did you hear him say these things?

I'm still stunned why providing evidence to support said claims appears to be a foreign concept to some.

We get it. You support this book, even though you haven't read it yourself, and lots of us have given you sound evidence. Can we move on now?

 

[1still_waters]

We get it. You support this book, even though you haven't read it yourself, and lots of us have given you sound evidence. Can we move on now?

I've never read the book, how can I support it?

All I'm asking for is contextual evidence to support said assertions.

Why is this such a foreign idea?
Why is that objected to so much?

 

[1still_waters]

We get it. You support this book, even though you haven't read it yourself, and lots of us have given you sound evidence. Can we move on now?

No one has given sound evidence.

Sound evidence is not a claim supported by an isolated highly charged emotional word without its surrounding major context.
Sound evidence is not simply lots of people piling on together saying they agree with the same opinion.
Sound evidence is not reports of people who read the book and then did really bad stuff.

 

[1still_waters]

You said a page of text would be nice... I provided a link to the entire book!

Lol but the burden isn't on me to read an entire book from a person making claims/assertions.

The burden is on you to provide the easy contextual proof.

It's silly to make an assertion, then hand someone 100+ pages and be like...Hey find the needle in that haystack.

If one can't provide easy to access contextual proof to back up their assertions, they probably shouldn't be making assertions.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Lol but the burden isn't on me to read an entire book from a person making claims/assertions.

The burden is on you to provide the easy contextual proof.

It's silly to make an assertion, then hand someone 100+ pages and be like...Hey find the needle in that haystack.

If one can't provide easy to access contextual proof to back up their assertions, they probably shouldn't be making assertions.

Oh come on, don't make me do all the work lol

 

[Nautilus]

Nautilus I read your first evidence piece.
It's still insufficient evidence to me.
It seems to be a series of assertions, backed up by a brief word snippet, or series of words. The snippets appeared conjectured. Here is one example.



What's the context?
Yes on the surface it looks bad to say just ignore a screaming child.
But what is the context?

Is the context about putting a child to bed for the 50th time at night because he keeps carrying on and on? If the kid is screaming, and claiming to be hurt, just as a way to keep from going to sleep, is a parent to keep running into the room every time a noise is made? What if the only way to break that is to let him keep on making noise, so he learns you can't be manipulated?

See when we aren't given contextual proof, and are just given negative assertions with bad sounding snippets that appear to support said negative assertions, we're left wondering who is saying what.

Contextual evidence is important.

If the context of the above is in the context of telling parents to ignore their kids if they're truly hurt, and hungry, then we got serious issues. But if the context is in the context of telling parents to ignore lil johnny who won't go to bed, who is trying to emotionally manipulate you through crying/screaming/claims to be hurt, then the author has a point. But we just don't know which is which, because NO ONE will give contextual proof, surrounding paragraph proof, or forbid, actual page length proof.

People are so quick to believe a negative assertion. All it seems to take to get agreement is to

1. Make said claim
2. Give non-contextual snippets of mean sounding words,
3. Get horror stories of people who claimed to have read it but who may have actually misread and misapplied it.
4. Get people to agree that said assertions are bad.
5. Once enough people hop on and agree said assertions are bad, claim the assertions are true because so many people say so.

Who cares about providing contextual proof to validate said claims, when doing the above is sooo much easier?

Except that had multitudes of snippets on the book its hard to imagine you still couldnt get the kist of it from that unless youre just willfully being ignorant not to mention the transcript from an interview this man did.

Is this som holy crusade you have defending this book because its somehow tied into to a christian publisher and you view it as persecution or something?

 

[Donkeyfish07]

To Train Up a Child Parenting Book Leads to Multiple Child Deaths | Babble

This and some others I read were enough to convince me that this book should be pulled. I have two children and I don't hit them either. I'm not going to beat my kids into being the person I think or want them to be.

Not that it's NEVER been done, but it's illegal to do that in the U.S.....free speech. It's illegal to censor something that you don't agree with, even if it's horrible.

 

[Donkeyfish07]

Except that had multitudes of snippets on the book its hard to imagine you still couldnt get the kist of it from that unless youre just willfully being ignorant not to mention the transcript from an interview this man did.

Is this som holy crusade you have defending this book because its somehow tied into to a christian publisher and you view it as persecution or something?

I could take multiple snippets out of the bible and make a pretty awful misrepresentation if I was so inclined. I could do it to any book actually.

 

[Fenner]

I think as human beings we know that there are other human beings who will use these types of "parenting" (if that's what you want to call it) methods to discipline their children. This my thought, we need to be responsible for what we put out there. I mean like publishing a book. The guy who wrote books and sold them on TV, Kevin Trudeau is now in jail for fraud. Kevin Trudeau already in jail, but 2nd judge slams cell door - Chicago Sun-Times


I didn't read any of his books, and there are people who claimed he helped them. But seriously this is not a diet book, this is a book about children, the title alone to me is disturbing. Train up, sounds like your talking about a dog, not a person. They're talking about using PVC pipe to hit kids. So these two didn't think somewhere out there some idiot was going to beat the stuffing out of their kid because they think, "well that's how the Pearl's raised there kids, and they have a book and kids that are missionaries and perfect little replicas of them." I hold them somewhat responsible for publishing dangerous methods of punishing children.

 

[Brother_Don]

i would have liked to have the perfect children that never needed spanked, but i didn't. It did hurt me when i spanked my boys, but they was warned. i would warn them if they didn't chill out before some one was hurt they would get it. i used a spoon, on crack on butt. then when they was a little older 8 or 9, they got the choice of spanking or grounding, standing in corner, 2 wacks, 2 hrs in corner, 2 days grounding. i don't think chidren should be beat, or tortured, but their is a fine line.

 

[Relena7]

If a parent of a child with ADHD or Aperger's syndrome or any other mental differences tried the methods from this book, that child would be dead within a year. Or they'd be criminals later on. Or perhaps just suicidal.

I have never read the book. But the quotes pasted from that book in this thread make me want to vomit.

 

[Relena7]

Nautilus I read your first evidence piece.
It's still insufficient evidence to me.
It seems to be a series of assertions, backed up by a brief word snippet, or series of words. The snippets appeared conjectured. Here is one example.



What's the context?
Yes on the surface it looks bad to say just ignore a screaming child.
But what is the context?

Is the context about putting a child to bed for the 50th time at night because he keeps carrying on and on? If the kid is screaming, and claiming to be hurt, just as a way to keep from going to sleep, is a parent to keep running into the room every time a noise is made? What if the only way to break that is to let him keep on making noise, so he learns you can't be manipulated?

See when we aren't given contextual proof, and are just given negative assertions with bad sounding snippets that appear to support said negative assertions, we're left wondering who is saying what.

Contextual evidence is important.

If the context of the above is in the context of telling parents to ignore their kids if they're truly hurt, and hungry, then we got serious issues. But if the context is in the context of telling parents to ignore lil johnny who won't go to bed, who is trying to emotionally manipulate you through crying/screaming/claims to be hurt, then the author has a point. But we just don't know which is which, because NO ONE will give contextual proof, surrounding paragraph proof, or forbid, actual page length proof.

People are so quick to believe a negative assertion. All it seems to take to get agreement is to

1. Make said claim
2. Give non-contextual snippets of mean sounding words,
3. Get horror stories of people who claimed to have read it but who may have actually misread and misapplied it.
4. Get people to agree that said assertions are bad.
5. Once enough people hop on and agree said assertions are bad, claim the assertions are true because so many people say so.

Who cares about providing contextual proof to validate said claims, when doing the above is sooo much easier?

You keep on asking people for cold hard unfeeling evidence against the negative feedbacks given about this book. Well guess what? You won't ever have cold hard logical emotion-free evidence against child abuse, because it does not exist. Child abuse isn't always about the physical scars left on the child. It IS about the child's emotions. It starts out that way, then it erodes their self worth and their personality becomes broken. You can't look at a child and see their internal wounds. You will never see them. You will only see the manifestations of their past abuse carried out in their attitudes and EMOTIONAL baggage later in life. And you could easily cast that aside and chalk it up to something else because "life is hard" and you have not been in their shoes, and refuse to believe them because it isn't "solid" enough evidence for you.

You'll never have non-emotional evidence on an issue that harms emotions. You either agree or you don't.

 

[presidente]

If parents beat their adopted kid to death and happened to have a copy of the Pearl's book in their house when they did it, that doesn't mean the Pearl's book is responsible. They probably had a Bible in their house, too. That doesn't make the Bible at fault. I saw an interview with Michael Pearl after that. He said he recommended 10 whacks on the behind for disobedience. It doesn't sound like the parents were following his advice.

I don't know if the quotes were in context, but I definitely see a problem with spanking 4 month olds and spanking babies for crying. I am pretty light on spanking as a parent. I should probably be stricter, but spanking is definitely not the only tool in the kit. Proverbs warns against sparking the rod, but it has a lot in there about teaching the child as well, and parenting should be a lot more about teaching than spanking. I think spanking for rebellion is appropriate. If I have a two-year old that hits a parent maliciously, that warrants a spanking. I don't the little ones get away with biting or hitting the other kids either. Some things need to be addressed with physical discipline, but only if the children are old enough to understand.

It seems like a lot of criticism of the book comes from those who are totally against physical discipline, something the Proverbs recommend.

 

[Maitreya]

In my eyes, a child is only as obedient as their emotions allow them to be.

For instance, hitting a child. They're obedient because they fear being hit, not because they've learned anything (except that bad things means sore bum). Shouting at a child, they become disobedient because they get used to it and detach emotionally, not to mention they develop shouting as a means of communicating; they become irritable, angry and gather up angst.

Talking compassionately to a child, they learn to respect you for your wisdom and demeanor; they mirror your patience and compassion; they get room to breathe and they don't fear, but rather revere.

Intellectually, children are much more comprehending than they often get credit for, and emotionally, they start out as pure little empathic creatures, capable of amazing actions and words. It's only bad parenting that makes bad children.

You hit the child, they will take that out in some form or other, now or in the future.

 

[4Hizcall]

I haven't heard of it. sounds horrible.