As one reader pointed out in a comment on my earlier post, Change.org has a petition to Amazon asking it not to carry books that advocate violence toward children—that is, corporeal punishment. I see this as an issue of imminent harm, which trumps free speech, and had no compunction about signing the petition. It asks Amazon to review its books and not carry ones that advocate beating children. The language seems reasonable:
Currently there are several books available to buy on Amazon (both .com and .co.uk) that advocate, endorse and advise on parenting methods that involve the physical abuse of children. Examples of titles include To Train Up A Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl; Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Tedd Tripp; and Don’t Make Me Count to Three by Ginger Plowman.
Such books, and others like them, promote behaviour which is abusive of children. All of the above books advocate the use of a rod and other implements on children under one.
Such behaviour is abusive to children, and it is also ‘offensive’, which is contrary to Amazon’s Content Guidelines.
It may well also be illegal, as it seems to go far beyond the ‘reasonable chastisement’ currently sanctioned by law in the UK, (where this petition originated) and in many US States. Not only is beating on a regular basis with a rod likely to leave a mark, which is illegal in the UK, it is also likely to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, which is a breach of human rights.
We wish Amazon to urgently review their decision to stock any book or other product which advises the physical abuse of children.
There are a lot of readers here, and if you agree with that sentiment then you know where to go. There are about 16,600 signers, and they need eight thousand more.
You can see a list of notable signers, including experts on child abuse, here.
Signed. And shared on Facebook.
Signed
Signed
Ditto.
Signed.
Likewise.
Signed
Done.
Signed
Signed
Signed
Signed and shared. I thought l long about it, I’ve seen a petition like this a few years ago. I love free speech, I love books that are fought against and banned. Is this book free speech or a manual to hurt and kill kids? It’s insightful. It is telling people to do harmful things, that’s why I signed it. It won’t stop this book, unfortunately. This book (train up a child specifically) is passed around homeschool conventions and churches, it will be sold on the peals website. It’s not going to stop people from getting the information if they want it. 🙁
I’m not sure that free speech is a relevant argument here. The concept has to do with whether or not government blocks speech, not whether this or that store sells this or that book.
No, this won’t stop the book. But it will significantly reduce the availability of this sort of advocacy-for-child-abuse.
Asking a vendor not to stock books isn’t the same thing as banning a book or silencing an idea. These people will still find publishers and promoters of their ideas, notably in the organisations that are the very places where these ideas are seeded.
It’s not even as though these books contain new ideas or even formulations of new ideas. They’re just a defence of an age-old system of abuse.
But in any case, that is beside the point. There is a difference between private businesses – even very big ones – choosing not to be a platform for every type of crazy out there; and an individual being compelled under threat of law to be silent on a certain matter.
Signed. What is it about christianity that makes it go hand in hand with hurting children and being proud of it?
It’s behind the times. Even as a child, I grew up in a culture that saw punishment as very much a normal thing (we had the strap in school, I was spanked by teachers and let’s not go into what happened outside of school).
The rest of us realized this was wrong. Portions of Christianity haven’t yet. More proof that religion doesn’t make us better but humanist values, informed by science and indeed our own feelings do.
Anent your second paragraph:
“Religious readers may object that the harm in all these cases is done by perversions of religion, not by religion itself. But religious wars and persecutions have been at the center of religious life throughout history. What has changed, that these now seem to some people in some parts of the world to be only perversions of true religious belief? Has there been a new supernatural revelation, or a discovery of lost sacred writings that put religious teachings in a new light? No—since the Enlightenment there has been instead a spread of rationality and humanitarianism that has in turn affected religious belief, leading to a wider spread of religious toleration. It is not that religion has improved our moral sense but that a purely secular improvement in our moral values has improved the way religion is practiced here and there.” (Steven Weinberg, Facing Up, pp. 255-256)
They are trying to be like their god. He’s a sadist, ergo…
Signed
Good for you, Jerry. Thanks for the information. A 14 y.o. adopted from Ethiopia, has recently died in Minnesota from hypothermia (she had been shut out of the house) beating and malnutrition. Her adoptive “mother” has been sentenced to 37 years in prison and her adoptive “father” has been sentenced to 28 years. The judge was unhappy that the sentences could not be longer. Wonder how long it will be before those persons get out of prison on probation?
Corporeal punishment?
Corporeal punishment= punishment applied to the body.
Still an unusual usage methinks and not sure why my post appeared at an odd spot, probably cos I stuffed up. Either way I wouldn’t want to detract from the point made in the two posts.
owleyes, Jerry has already posted on that case:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/more-religion-as-child-abuse-parents-get-stiff-jail-time-for-beating-their-child-to-death-using-christian-guidelines/
(I know–it’s easy to read topics in the opposite order than they were posted in if you start at the website’s home page. 🙂 )
Done.
Done. I’m not particularly proud of myself for loathing a particular segment of society, but for these people I’ll make an exception.
Ditto. Signed.
Ok, I’ll be the bad guy… I am certainly not in favor of child abuse and I’m pretty confident I would hate these books, but I’d much rather the experts write their own rebuttals than we attempt to ban the books in any capacity. I want to live in a world where I can read Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto, whether or not I endorse them. I would admit that those books have more value from a historical standpoint than the books currently being attacked.
Asking amazon to remove them to me is paternalistic: we’re assuming that readers lack to the capacity to criticize and reject the ideas in these books. I doubt they’re that persuasive except to the already persuaded. If the ideas are bad, they should inherently have enough of a barrier to being spread widely. Better to have the ideas out there where than be understood and discredited than ban them and give them some kind of cult notoriety I doubt they deserve.
Maybe I’m just an idealist child of the information age, but I want all ideas to be as free and accessible as possible, so we don’t forget what’s wrong with the bad ones.
My knee jerk response is to argue that these books are promoting what amounts to child abuse. Abuse that would likely constitute a criminal offence under English law ~ for example the withholding of meals is beyond the pale
However I deplore the idea of a multinational corporation [Amazon] being the authority on what is permitted. I can imagine a situation where an authoritarian tendency [such as Islam] hits Amazon with a flurry of petitions to ban this, that & the other…
So I’m in two minds 🙂
However ~ on the more general point of freedom of expression I found a Wiki article that lists books banned by governments & I recommend that you take a look. I found it fascinating, hilarious & incredible in parts. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland being banned in part of China in 1931 jumped out at me, but there are many more little gems.
“We wish Amazon to urgently review their decision to stock any book or other product which advises the physical abuse of children.”
So no more Bibles, then?
+1
Excellent!
Signed.
Signed
Brits might wish to sign the British petition:
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/amazon-uk-withdraw-a-title-which-endorses-beating-children-from-4-months-of-age
Signed.
Up with which we will not put.
Interesting you should “channel” Hitchins on a point he would, on previous form, probably have been on the other side of.
Perhaps you have forgotten his spirited defense of Irvine in 1996, when St Martins press “decided” not to honour their agreement to publish his work under public pressure, or his public accusations of cowardice of the European and US Media for not showing the Danish Mohammed cartoons “for fear of causing offence”?
From his debates, I understand his position to have been that the best position for an opinion, especially those which appear to be contrary to basic human dignity, was out under the cold light of objective scrutiny to as wide an audience as possible, where it can be ridiculed for the unenlightened clap trap it is.
Hitchens on Irving:
“David Irving is not just a Fascist historian. He is also a great historian of Fascism”
That seems to me like reason enough not to censor the man.
And “fear of causing offence” is not the same as “fear of causing actual physical damage and death to children”.
I doubt if the people who buy those child-rearing books will even notice or care that they are ridiculed in the “sinful” media.
Signed and shared with friends and the loving family in which I was raised.
I doubt that Amazon has the slightest idea what’s in the books they sell but I’ve signed. I was beaten and locked in dark closets as a child myself.
Almost certainly. They’re a box shifter. Who I use myself, but I’m not particularly keen on giving free advertising too.
I actually like going into a bookshop and browsing. (Anything to get out of the rain!) Amazon are likely to kill that, and that troubles me. Which probably explains why it’s the thick end of a year since I brought anything from them. (My campaign to thin the metre-odd of bookshelf filled with un-read books is another factor. And my local bricks-&-mortar bookshops, second-hand ones in particular, are being even worse impediments to that campaign than Amazon are.)
I agree it is not a “freedom of speech” issue, but has this really been thought through?
Effectively, what you are saying is that if 20,000 Amazon users find a book “offensive” then Amazon [com or co.uk] should withdraw the book from sale.
Do you really want this to happen?
A while ago, a guy called Coyne wrote a book about “Why Evolution is True”. I personally thought it quite persuasive [though I was, I confess, predisposed to its worldview before reading it], however a lot of people found it deeply offensive as it contained the implication that man is the product of a series of evolutionary changes, rather than the deliberate design of God.
Are you saying that, if someone can get 20,000 of these people to write in to Amazon and say they found the book offensive you would be happy if Amazon withdrew it from sale “according to their policy”?
I think that, by trying to get one of “their” [the fundamental christian lobby’s] books withdrawn from sale from a particular outlet, you are just handing them a stick to beat you with.
If you believe that it is subornation, or indeed an incitement to break the law, then there are legal remedies available to you [in the UK at least, although I would imagine in the more litigious US culture there are pretty much the same provisions]
How long would it take, I wonder, for one of your more popular televangelists to whip up 20,000 signatures to get a book withdrawn form sale because he’d had a message from God the previous evening, telling him he was angry at Jerry Coyne’s book and wanted his true followers to oppose this evil heresy?
Best leave “being offended” as an inconsequential argument employed only by those with no real point to make, I think. You may find people with a different worldview to yours have turned “being offended” into an artform, and your petition may, in fact, turn out to be a petard
The hope is that Jeff Bezos and his colleagues will actually evalate the motivations behind a 20,000 signature petition. I think that if Amazon were to equate an effort to suppress books that advocate beating small children with an effort to suppress scientific books, the state of our society would be so bad that we would already have censorship of of books like WEIT. If you even give in to the fear that such a bizarre symmetry will apply, the bad guys have already won.
Evaluate them against what, exactly?
My fear is not of the “symmetry”, but of normally rational people falling into the same trap as the terminally delusional, that being that the suppression of, or even the decrease in availability of that material which they find “offensive” somehow adds to the dialectic.
The correct place for these ideas, especially those that rational people find contrary to basic human solidarity is out in the public eye, and not restricted, by the very people who would oppose them, to a few self-confirming and closed communities.
Against standards of decency maybe ?
By the way, I suspect that Bezos has already seen many thousands of nasty letters and e-mails concerning his support for gay marriage rights. If he didn’t bow down to these clowns for that, I really don’t think evolution is much threatened.
Fixed that for you! {G}
Sir, I like your turn of phrase. I hope it doesn’t blow up in your face.
Why does this post sound a little clued out to me?
What about boundaries and limits in protecting, first and foremost, the most vulnerable of our society? When we lose our individual capacity for outrage against injustice, and abdicate the responsibility of calling attention to such injustice, then another crack is being formed in the foundation of civilized society.
And exactly how is getting Amazon not to sell the book protecting them?
Are you suggesting that there are some people [not as enlightened or intelligent as the people calling for the ban, obviously] who may read that a book is available on Amazon, and decide it is OK to beat your child on that basis?
Are you suggesting that Amazon is the main availability vector for information exchange amongst the child beating community, and that somehow drying up the supply of information via Amazon will make them cease through lack of instruction?
Or are you suggesting [most dangerously of all] that you can call attention to an injustice by removing any references to it from the public sphere?
Banning, or restricting access to bad ideas is always counter productive precisely because it takes it out of the spotlight and forces it underground amongst self-reinforcing cabals who are now effectively immune from criticism.
If you are really concerned about it, and think that the books are an incitement to criminal activity, then there is a vector open to you to address that.
Or is it just a gesture, a way of establishing your right on credentials with your peers?
If so, it might be an expensive one it seems to me, in diluting the vectors for shining a light on, an encouraging criticism of, these abhorrent behaviours
You are insulting the commenters who feel sincerely and strongly about this by saying they’re “establishing right on credentials”. That is snarky and rude. You really should apologize for that remark.
And, as Grania said above, “There is a difference between private businesses – even very big ones – choosing not to be a platform for every type of crazy out there; and an individual being compelled under threat of law to be silent on a certain matter.”
I suppose you think I should let anybody post anything they want on this site.
Then I shall apologize unreservedly, that wasn’t my intent, and it was, on consideration over the top.
I was merely trying to get at the differences between using a call for a ban to express your opinion, and what the practical effect of such a ban would be, were it to be enforced, in terms of desired results against actual results
I certainly said, if not in this post then certainly in another one, that is is not a freedom of speech issue, I don’t think you, or anyone else should be forced to promulgate ideas you don’t agree with and, to be fair I don’t think I suggested that anywhere, and I think its a little unfair that your reply suggests I did
But then again, it is your blog, and you can suggest what you like I guess.
My whole point is that banning or restricting access to information is dangerous [assuming the stuff isn’t actually illegal] regardless of how mental or unprincipled it is. A lack of information never turned an issue, and I think it is important that everyone gets as much chance as possible to see, in public, those issues that being discussed and re-inforced by these people in private, and will continue to be discussed ecen after a ban.
I just think that the eventual cure for all these offensive ideas and religiously inspired abuse is the full exposure in the public square for reasonable people to consider.
And we cant do that if you’ve a;ready driven the “debate” underground
How does Amazon not selling the book pose a danger ?
Amazon selling the book clearly does pose a danger, since the fact Amazon is selling it gives the book a veneer of respectability it does not deserve.
Quite simply, people following the advice of that book could kill their children as a result, or leave them physically, emotionally and psychologically damaged. And anything that gives the impression that the ideas about child raising in that book are in anyway acceptable is dangerous to children.
I really cannot understand why you cannot or will not understand this.
I get where you’re coming from Pete and I considered the things you bring up before I decided to sign the petition myself. I think what makes the difference for me is while I agree that open discussion of “bad things” is necessary, I thought what that meant practically.
So, if say we were to allow all materials to be out in the world without censor so we could debate their merits, while we were busy debating, those materials are out there causing real harm. I don’t believe all the people who these books appeal to would have followed through on these abuses if they didn’t find them in a book written by what ostensibly appear as professionals. Yes, it sounds paternalistic and I suppose it is but I think in practice this is how it goes down.
Some may argue that it’s a slippery slope and question what gets banned next, (books on evolution or books about history?) and sure we should always think about that but I think deciding what we accept as a society is more nuanced and as someone pointed out earlier, if we get to that point we find ourselves in a society where major book sellers start banning science and history books then we would have already sunk as a society.
In the end, asking a major book seller to enforce its policy of removing offensive materials in line with examples it provides of such materials (see the first one), is saying that as a society we don’t accept abusive practices:
Very magnanimous of you, Mr. Grimes.
It seems to me that the arguments for banning or not, are finely balanced. But we haven’t finished loading the table with other facts, – other information, that should clear the air.
Firstly, caste your mind back to early parenthood. Remember how it felt to be alone with a first baby fresh from the hospital? I remember we felt desperate for some overall plan; some guidelines and goals in early infant rearing. The only books available are a collection of rather dodgy books written by people with a hidden agenda, – sometimes religious. Those books now sleep with my sheep, and I sometimes flick their pages in disgust at their unhealthy advice. So, the desperation of new parents for books of guidance may help throw this horrible book into their path.
I raised two families of children, and now have a lot of understanding on what to do. One of the most intriguing realisations is that SOME children are prone to rapid fevers they catch at kindergarten. Those fevers often last for a couple of hours. During that time the child may become cranky, spiteful, and naughty; hitting other siblings, using crayon on walls, and breaking things. At those times the Christian ‘intervention’ would result in heavy bruising and a resentful child. The solution is a handy thermometer, or, better, a hand upon the child’s forehead, which, with practice, tells you if they have a fever or not. If a fever, then lots of hugs, little treats, and close attention until the fever goes away.
Another surprising trick of child-rearing concerns the kids who cry out at night. For the first year, respond quickly. I once found my son had wrapped a toy’s tape tightly around his wrist. But then begin to delay your response a few minutes each time. When you reach ten or fifteen minutes delay before responding, then the child we consider it not worth calling for all that ten minutes, and will go back to sleep – unless there is a serious problem!
……………………………………..
By the way, intemperate language is not the thing on Jerry’s site. Imagine that we are all sitting in Jerry’s living-room, working our way through some fine Burgundy wines. By doing so we are involved in conviviality, but even more important, we are enriching my neighbours!
I’ll have a bit of that Bordeaux, please.
You use a lot of words, but where is the bottom line when it comes down to the welfare of children in dangerous situations?
Sometimes there are grey areas in a controversy, but IMO, when in doubt, it’s better to err on the side of caution, on the side of the most vulnerable, when children are involved. A child has already died. It’s not business as usual. Why make it so easy for these writers to gain that stamp of acceptability, approval and respectability?
Even if Amazon refuses to stop carrying these books, public outrage about this will shine a light on this problem, precisely because of the relative immediacy of media and technology. People who do this sort of thing will be quickly held up to ridicule, and today some might actually think twice about abusing their children.
This does not negate the need for other pressures to bear on the issue, e.g. through the courts. But in then meantime, would you prefer to sit idly and wait years for something concrete to be done?
I don’t think this, or any petition, is perfect. Nor that it has to be.
But ” ‘offensive’ ” is not offensive.
And even if it was, there is a legitimate claim that there are objective offensive (say, using needless violence) as well as subjective offensive (say, arguing against religion) behavior.
I should point out that there may be a subjectivity in offensiveness of behavior abuse to children. (Unfortunately.)
But I don’t know of any culture that wouldn’t find it offensive to do it against children under one?
I think you mistake various meanings of “offense”. It is offensive to say someone’s mother is ugly. But is is also offensive to sell photographs taken with hidden cameras in toilet stalls. One is much more of a problem than the other.
In this case the petition points out that Amazon has a policy that is being violated.
Now, unless your position is that private companies may not have such policies, I think your argument is off-base. And if that is you are saying that merchants should have no say in the choice products that they stock and that they must stock all products.
I think Amazon should sell whatever they can turn a pound [or indeed a buck] on, and if they don’t want to sell books in a particular category, or even ones that have a blue cover, or any other completely arbitrary measure, as they wish, then that is completely fine with me.
I’m saying that the people who want to ban these books from Amazon must [surely?] have some result in mind should these books be withdrawn, and it is difficult for me to see how any of those possible outcomes could be be anything but either [at best] neutral or even counterproductive, assuming your aim is to call attention to these barbaric “spare the rod and spoil the child” practices and their proponents and get them to desist [or be committed]
Tell me, for example, what you think is the best possible outcome should you be successful in getting the book withdrawn from the Amazon lists.
I’m excluding, of course, that warm fuzzy feeling you will get from doing “something” to demonstrate your revulsion of these practices, no sane person could feel otherwise.
But to do that at the cost of not considering what the practical results of a ban might be just seems a little ……. self indulgent?
Has it not occurred to you that Amazon refusing to sell such books helps reinforce the message that raising children using the methods described is unacceptable in a decent society ?
And please do not assume we share your lack of ability to understand why that might be a good things.
I don’t doubt it is a good message [no scrub that, an essential message] to re-inforce, I just doubt that getting it withdrawn from the Amazon lists is an effective way of doing so.
Maybe it’s my lack of worldly experience but I don’t actually know of anybody who bases their opinion of what is and isn’t socially acceptable behaviour on whether Amazon sells books on the subject.
I do however, know of quite a few people who, whilst browsing through Amazon say “Hey do people actually believe that this stuff is socially acceptable, I didn’t realise! What kind of nuts are they?”
And I just happen to believe a rational convert is worth a thousand bans
False choice.
And by all means, go make some rational converts. I don’t think anyone here is objecting to your efforts in that regard.
The whole thing is a false choice, based on unwillingness to understand that when mainstream retailers offer a product for sale it gives that product a veneer of respectability in the eyes of the public.
And his views would have more worth were he to insist that Amazon put a disclaimer on the product page of the book making it clear that the advice in the book is considered dangerous by experts in the field of child raising, and has result in the deaths of children.
“And I just happen to believe a rational convert is worth a thousand bans ”
I dare you to try to explain that to the children who’re being battered.
I think a few people here would regard those deaths as acceptable losses in their absolutist crusade for freedom of speech. Because they might claim to deplore those deaths, they are happy to allow the easy advocacy of a system of child rearing that makes such deaths inevitable.
It is a form of moral cowardice on their part, combined with a callous indifference.
According to one article, To Train Up A Child has been around for 20 years! And apparently still being used by some, with some terrible results. I wonder what other actions have ever been taken, over the years, to protect kids from this kind of garbage.
Oh, and as for tangible results, does maybe stopping even on child being subjected to such child rearing methods count for you ?
It counts for me, and I think almost everyone else here.
Do you want to explain why it does not matter to you ?
Reducing availability of instruction manuals for the abuse of children does not seem to me remotely “self indulgent”.
Exactly, anymore than reducing the availability of materials that provide instructions on how to make a bomb would be self-indulgent.
Signed. And confused and upset that I should have to.
Signed.
“All of the above books advocate the use of a rod and other implements on children under one.”
That sentence made me feel nauseous.
Was there yesterday. It took me hours to unravel.
It is no secret that spanking and whipping are two of the most common forms of sadism. I do not believe that every parent who gives a kid an occasional swat is a sadist, but any parent so obsessed with the subject that he or she would buy a book devoted to the subject [or write one] is.
If a man beats his wife, we have no hesitation in labeling him a sadist; we wouldn’t hesitate to apply the label to a man who beats his dog. We should do the same to those who beat their children and to those who encourage it. Beating children should be viewed with the same contempt as wife-beating or cruelty to animals are, and these books should be considered child pornography.
Agree with this comment, and signed the petition to Amazon.
Thanks for this!
Signed.
I also note that, to the best of my knowledge, any abuse of children and especially corporeal is breaking the laws of Sweden. You can’t hit others (except in defending self or others against harm), period.
Which makes the legislation around offensive behavior, as I understand it, a tad funny:
Unless it is systematic harassment (in the work place, say), you have to inform the potential abuser of, say, unwanted hugs before moving on the matter (say, calling police).
That is, sitting down as two adults (as it were) and nearly _discuss_ what one part find offensive but at least _inform_.
What the law requires nowadays, acting like adults and all…
I wondered what the reviews on Amazon would say … MANY disgusted people there.
The first 5 star review jumped out of the 1 star ones, so I read it … I mean, 5 stars ..WHO in his right mind ..?
I actually could agree with the review!
http://tinyurl.com/oqkxsr7
Signed. Thanks for the tip.
What happened to the freedom of thought and the interplay of ideas? If corporal punishment of children is a bad idea, then shouldn’t the argument against it win in open intellectual battle?
Pressing Amazon to censor its offerings is the thin edge of the wedge. If Amazon caves, what would the signers of this petition think when conservative groups take up the strategy and drive liberal books from Amazon?
Another well-intentioned bad idea from our side. Haven’t we learned from the library censorship battles?
-a liberal
Children are dead ad result of their parents following the advice in this book.
Are they of no concern to you ? Or do you regard them as acceptable casualties in your dogmatic battle ?
What kind of monster are you to be so cavalier ? Seriously, you need to explain your total lack of concern.
Come on, that’s name calling and over the top. He’s expressed reservations that I myself had, though I did sign the petition. He’s of the opinion that battles may be won in the public square if enough people are made aware of what’s going on; and reservations about what precedent a ban such as this might set regarding other interest groups. He sees potential problems from driving these sadist psychopaths underground, rather than relying on the power of public outrage.
We might consider these ideas and decide to reject them, but I don’t think they make the poster a monster, nor that he’s coming across at all as someone with a “total lack of concern.”
Sorry, but I do think Grimes is callous and indifferent to the damage done.
And he is not relying on public outrage to change attitudes. Quite the opposite, he has made it clear he is opposed to very practical means of that being expressed.
And as for the argument against beating children, the argument has been won in the more civilised parts of the world.
“I see this as an issue of imminent harm, which trumps free speech…”
Well, according to historical court rulings this is not an example of imminent harm sufficient to trump free speech. I understand if you feel free speech should be more limited than our courts do, but I can’t go down that path. I think the courts have struck a good balance in the US.
I also don’t agree with the petition’s argument that the promotion of activity illegal in the UK (or any country) should be grounds for its removal from book stores. (And Amazon apparently doesn’t have such a rule either.)
I think it’s also a big stretch to say that arguing for corporal punishment of children falls under the Amazon policy against “glorifying violence”, especially given Amazon’s examples, which are all of a different character.
Since both of the petition’s arguments fall flat, the petition is really saying “Refuse to carry books that we dislike”. If the books actually say parents should “use … a rod … on children under one”, then I think that’s awful — what could a newborn even do wrong? — but I still can’t call for their or anyone’s books to be removed from stores just because most people dislike them.
Let me be clear about this.
Can you confirm that you see nothing wrong with a company selling a book on child raising methods that is known to have caused to the death of children ?
If so, please at least have a go at justifin g that. If you can’t, then please explain why you have such a callous disregard for the lives of children.
Oh, and US law does not apply in the UK where this petition originated. Please stop with your American exceptionalism crap.
Proponents of the books claim that those who cause significant harm are going against what the books say. If true, then parents who beat infants to death are misusing the information in the book. It hasn’t been demonstrated to me that adherence to what the book actually says will cause significant physical harm. Lots of things can cause death if misused, but that is not generally considered a reason to ban them. If a product causes death only very rarely, and only due to misuse, then no, I do not see a problem with that product being sold.
I don’t disregard the lives of children, but I don’t consider them to be worth more than the lives of adults, either. I know some people feel that if X saves the life of even one child, then it’s worth it, no matter what it is, but I disagree. (What makes children so special? I would bet money that people wouldn’t be so strongly in favor of the petition if it was the rare adult man who died, for instance.)
People arguing against the book must prove their case by arguing against the what the book actually says, not by pointing only to the most egregious excesses like beating infants and killing kids, unless the book really says or implies that parents should beat infants and kill kids, which I doubt.
Also, my comments weren’t based on American exceptionalism. The petition on change.org is listed as having been started by George Holden of Dallas, TX, so it seems like a fair assumption that the petition originated in the US. In any case, the country of origin has no relevance to my feelings on the matter.
You are being dangerously naive and ignorant.
Following the advice in “To Raise a Child” will result in death and injury (physical and psychological) to children.
You ask what makes children different. The answer is that children are more vulnerable to abuses of power than adults.
“To Raise a Child” advocates beating children as young as one with plastic piping. I would regard that as assault. Clearly you do not, since you not think it even constitutes a beating. Or are you simply ignorant about the advice contained with the book ?
Yes, I am ignorant of what the books say, except as far as people have quoted them. (I expect that is true for most people here.) I have a hard time believing that these three books say to beat infants under the age of one with plastic pipes. (And of course I think beating is beating.) I consider that most likely to be an exaggeration — proponents of the book say that it says to “tap” infants (which still seems pointless to me because newborns can’t do anything morally wrong, but a tap is not a beating) — but I’ve also held open the possibility that the books really are that bad.
If reading the books commonly leads to death and substantial injury, as opposed to only in rare cases of misuse, that would change my opinion of them.
Sure, children are more vulnerable to harm, but my question was along the lines of “given the death of a child and an adult, why should the death of the child be considered so much worse (i.e. what makes childrens’ lives so special)”? And I mean philosophically/rationally. I get that most people are more emotional about children, but I don’t think emotion is a good basis for policy.
You may have a hard time believing “To Raise a Child” advocates beating children as young as one with plastic piping.
However that is exactly what the book does do. You not accepting that fact does not alter that reality.
You would seem to be engaging in willful ignorance. You don’t want it to be true, so you won’t accept it is true.
Given that, nothing you have say is of any importance is it ? You disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by your ignorance.
Can you explain why you are so arrogant as to carry on commenting when you are willing to ignore reality ?
It is not case of people disliking the books. It is case that they do real harm to real people.
Care to explain why you are not concerned about that ?
My response to this point would be that the books themselves do not do harm. I’ll concede a mild degree of cognitive dissonance however, given that I don’t believe in free will, so if a causal relationship between reading the book and beating infants can be demonstrated — and it’s reasonable to assume that it at least increases the probability by a small amount — then I would be faced with a choice between two values of mine: freedom of access to information and avoiding physical harm to the innocent.
But how much would banning the books help? Nobody really knows. Proponents of the books say that those who cause death or lasting injury are people who’ve actually gone against what the books say; not having read the books I can’t judge, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was true.
So as it is, I have to balance two things. On the one hand, a concrete attempt to abridge the free flow of information, to further establish offense as a legitimate ground for that, and to further to the idea that people should be prevented from having a venue to argue for actions that are illegal. On the other hand, there is the prevention of harm that would be caused by parents who would be convinced by the book to do it and who wouldn’t have done it otherwise.
Given that the latter possibility is abstract and unquantified, and the former is definite and concrete, I dislike the former more.
Can all those who think Amazon is perfectly correct it allowing such books to be sold explain why are so unconcerned about the very real harm that has resulted from parents following the advice in such books.
In particular I would like to them address the issue as why they think children should be sacrificed to appease their demands for “free speech”. A number have been asked to do this, and not one so far has been able to do so.
Because they are not unconcerned. They are also “concerned” about the books that are on offer from Amazon about really dangerous ideas, like paediatric homeopathy, and faith healing [there are only 15 copies left of “your healthy child through homeopathy” by Tricia Allen, but don’t worry they are reprinting it] which do actually kill people who might otherwise have been saved, I just don’t believe that Amazon agreeing to offer a book carries any impramatur and that the set of people who think that somehow Amazon offering a book lends legitimacy to the ideas it contains is inconsequentially small, if it exists at all.
Do you think Amazon offering books on Homeopathy validates Homeopaths?
Just consider, for a second, the likely effect of a book ban or withdrawal will have on the wider audience.
The authors of the books in question are now getting stickers for their book printed, and organising their next book tour of their favorite churches, entitled “The book the Atheists don’t want you to see”
The religiously sociopathic will see the opposition of the liberal atheist pinkos as a validation of their methods
The religious borderline sociopaths will seek out the book, wondering what got you in such a froth.
The religious who also consider beating a child as a horrendously antisocial activity [of which I suspect there are quite a few] wonder where these arrogant atheists get off, telling them that a book shouldn’t be on offer because, as religious people and therefore terminally stupid they cannot be relied upon to spot morally reprehensible behaviour when they see it, and therefore need the intellectually superior atheists to do it for them.
The Catholic apologists are busy rewriting their response to the next time they get pulled up on the religious suppression of “dangerous” knowledge to “Hey, I thought that was an approach you guys endorsed”
The People in Amazon are wondering how they are going to react when they get a letter reminding them that, since Atheism is just another belief system [as they will argue, I’m not suggesting the point is valid] then the “God Delusion” and “God is not Great” are effectively religious intolerance and should be withdrawn under their own guidelines
And lastly, there are going to be a set of Atheists [possibly restricted to just me] who think banning books is something “they” do, not “us”
And all for the sake of a minute population of people who consider Amazon offering a book as some sort of popular endorsement and now cannot buy it, so they will be unable to put it alongside their books on paediatric homeopathy, faith healing, and the discourses of Brigham Young, because Amazon clearly endorses the opinion that black people labour under the mark of Cain, and that great treatise on racial tolerance, Mein Kampf
I’m not suggesting that children should be sacrificed on the altar of free speech, I’m suggesting that, as far as book banning is concerned, the game is not worth the candle
You keep discussing this as if it was a matter of disputed theory; that private companies having standards by which they decide what to carry and what to not offer is some slippery slope down which all manner of dreadful is found.
This is bogus. All stores make decisions about what to offer on their shelves and what not to offer. One of the criteria Amazon uses is their Offensive Products Policy. Are you arguing that they should not be allowed to have such a policy? Are you arguing that their customers should not provide feedback to Amazon regarding products that violate the policy?
We’re talking about whether the largest purveyor of books on the planet should be distributing materials that advocate criminal brutality against children. Would you feel the same way if the books provide photographic instructions in how to amputate the fingers of children who “sass back” at their parents? Are there any limits to what you would allow?
Although not addressed to me I would respond as follows.
The limit I would personally set would be the same as that established by the US Supreme Court, which I think has struck a good balance on the issue of free speech. Certainly these books, and even your hypothetical finger-chopping book, wouldn’t meet the test, because they don’t actually lead to “imminent harm” as usually defined in this context.
That said, of course Amazon should be allowed to set its own rules, although they don’t seem to actually be violated in this case. And people should be allowed to try to convince Amazon to change its stance on these books.
You didn’t actually answer the question I posed. At least not the big one…
Are there any limits to what you would allow?
I think I did answer it. I said I would set the same limit as that established by the US Supreme Court, so yes, I would set a limit. However, the limit set by the courts is very high, and these books don’t meet it. More specifically, a book would have to be so inflammatory that a substantial percentage of those reading it would become filled with feeling and, acting upon that same feeling, go hurt someone illegally. (If they have time to think it over, it doesn’t count.)
I suppose that could happen if a parent reads these books while simultaneously very angry at a child, and if that happened in a substantial fraction of cases, you could argue that it causes imminent harm. But I suppose someone else could argue that the pre-existing anger was to blame…
You keep going on about the Supreme Court.
Is that some kind of fetish on your part, since it is not relevant.
You do seem to be saying some things that suggest you are not really on top of what this discussion is about.
It’s a free country… decide what you will. But first read what one reviewer says at the amazon site. She and her husband tried the beating methods prescribed by the book To Train Up a Child:
[We had a collection of 1/4″ plastic plumbing supply lines in varying sizes-shorter ones for the glove box of each vehicle, and longer ones for each room in the house. The supply lines served as our “rod of discipline,” as Michael Pearl suggests. We were frequently complimented on our well-behaved children (behavior modification does work) and I was a big fan of No Greater Joy…until the spring of 2010 when I learned about Lydia Schatz. I knew the Pearls did not advocate child abuse, and in fact speak against it, so I began looking into this issue on the internet.
The Pearls do recommend using plastic plumbing supply line as a spanking instrument, exactly the same instrument used to spank Lydia to death. And the district attorney in the case stated that there is a direct connection between Michael Pearl’s book and Lydia’s death. Yes, the Schatzes are certainly responsible for their own actions. But it is possible that someone with no discernment could overdo the Pearls’ advice to spank until the child is broken. Michael Pearl himself warns that the battle of wills can sometimes take awhile. But what if the child never gives that submissive whimper? When exactly are you supposed to stop before it crosses the line into abuse? TTUAC never clarifies this. For example (this is from the version of TTUAC that was found in the Schatz home):
“If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, wait a moment, lecture again, and again spank him until it’s obvious he’s totally broken.”(TTUAC, p59)
“Switch him 8-10 times on his bare legs or bottom. While waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If his crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If his crying is still defiant, protesting, and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he’s come up against someone tougher than he is, it may take awhile…if you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest!” (TTUAC p80)
“If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally…A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child has surrendered.” (TTUAC p46)
Lydia Schatz died from rhabdomyolysis, damage to the muscle tissue usually caused by trauma such as a car accident. She was, quite literally, spanked to death. According to the Contra Costa Times the Schatz’ attorney, Michael Harvey, said in regard to rhabdomyolysis, “most know it’s inappropriate to shake a baby, but few had heard of the medical condition that could be caused by Schatzes’ disciplinary method.”
Were we abusive during our “Pearl years”? No. But my heart aches to remember how I used to parent my children, thinking I had their best interests at heart. Anything less than first time obedience was disciplined for as disobedience (I’m glad God doesn’t treat me this way!) We expected behavior out of our children that, realistically, they were too immature to give. We used the rod as our first (and pretty much only) form of discipline. I rarely gave my babies pacifiers because Michael Pearl teaches that this is rewarding self-indulgence and leads to intemperance/overeating later in life. I stuffed down my motherly instincts when it came to training and discipline-I didn’t want to be that weak, emotional mother that Michael Pearl describes as loving herself more than her children. For the sake of my children’s souls I had to be tough and unrelenting, “a cold rock of justice,” to put it in Michael Pearl’s words.
In His mercy, God has drastically changed my perspective on parenting. Studying how God parents His children has been key for me. It was also incredible helpful to read Grace-Based Parenting. Also, I’ve written about the Pearls on my blog,(…)createdtobehis.com
Please avoid the heartache I’ve been through and stay far, far away from any and all books and materials put out by Michael and Debi Pearl and their ministry, No Greater Joy!”
Enough is enough.
It is worth nothing that in a number of countries, many but by no means all noted for being a bit more civilised that the US (or even the UK) administering such beatings would be considered assault, and could result in the person carrying them out being imprisoned.
How many of those here defending Amazon would so do if it was a book advovating the assault of adults ?
You’re right of course that in really civilized countries, child beatings are not allowed. (What I was referring to, the free-country/do- what-you-will part, was whether or not to sign the petition.)
Thank you for posting your experience.
I’m not generally opposed to corporal punishment of children given that, so far as I know, it was the norm in my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and probably in all generations before that, and all the people I know from those generations not only seem to have turned out just fine, but often speak of how fear of being spanked really did curb their misbehavior and inspire them to work hard in school, etc., even if they weren’t doing it for happy reasons. And as Steven Pinker points out, pretty much all parenting styles within the normal range don’t really leave much lasting effect, positive or negative, on children.
That said, the passages you quote strike me as perverse, disturbing, and well beyond what I would consider “normal” corporal punishment. It’s one thing to punish a child and another to “break” them.
But I still wouldn’t personally call for the books to be banned, even though I would support a law to make such parenting behaviors illegal.
Such parenting is illegal in many places.
In fact in a good number of countries, any assault on a child is illegal. Of course you have stated that you have no problem with some forms of assault on children, but it would seem not adults.
You asked for a difference between adults and children ? You came up with one yourself. Some jurisdictions do not apply to same protections against assault to children as they do to adults.
ashdevra
Posted November 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
“Signed. What is it about christianity that makes it go hand in hand with hurting children and being proud of it?”
Possible Answer…
My worldwide researches contained in a book ‘Origins of Belief and Behaviour” suggest a complex answer. It is called ‘Human Sub-Set Theory’.
About 30% of any human beings in any society come, through adolescence to believe that they may best self-actualise and find a place within society by identifying an ‘authority-structure” and by devoting their lives to finding a place within that structure, and by working to uphold the core beliefs and rituals of that structure. Those people are called ‘Drones’.
Drones are easily identified along the ‘Clerical-Admin-Professional- and Educational’ spectrum, and include such people as accountants, IT Workers, and academics in that their structured subjects are based upon the books by authorities, such as to be found in the Social Sciences, by Literature Majors, and, of course, in theology.
The facts are that contrary to the teachings of the Social Sciences, human beings are not homogeneous. There are different sub-sets, as you find among the social insects and so many group mammals. And members of those sub-sets are differentiated by their Brain Operating System. For example a religious Brain Operating System assumes a hierarchy of authority with gods at the top. That is why the babble all the time of ‘King of kings’ and ‘Maximally Great beings’
But the Drone worldview comes at a price. It is palpably contradicted by the world around us. For example, the bible is is an early science and social science book that flies in the face of almost everything we know about this planet, its objects and its processes. Therefore religious people have to abandon the ability to process experiential information! They have to learn to ignore the world in favour of the orthodoxy. For those people, all knowledge comes from authority. You may be surprised to realise just how many academics and schoolmasters work upon that principle! The name Hedin at Ball State ring a bell?
But Drones expect similar obedience to authority within their own children. The great Drone founder of child-raising was Dr Truby King, a New Zealand doctor of the last century who advocated keeping emotional distance from children, and of feeding them at regular times, and leaving them alone for long periods. It was a wretched practice of emotional withdrawal from children that has scarred two generations, until Dr Spock in the sixties started to suggest a closer emotional relationship with your kids. But the muscular Christian way of Truby King prevails in some Western countries, particularly among the religious.
Christians find some support for child-brutality in their holy book, the bible. The religious way in both Christianity and Islam is to force the Drone worldview of ‘obedience to authority’ upon their own children. Charlie Fuqua, Legislative Candidate for Arkansas, in a 2012 book, proposed killing some children to warn the rest to obey the their parents as it says in the bible.
‘Human Sub-Set Theory’ offers such powerful explanations for human belief and behaviour, it might become a dominant theory into the next century. It has had a rough inception simply because social scientists are too quick to dismiss it before beginning to understand it or even reading the evidence. That dismissal of a new hypothesis indicates why the Social Sciences are not science. They are a branch of religion. In the case of the Social Sciences, the holy books of that subject are ever-changing. Remember reading huge books upon Freud. Who today reads Talcott Parsons in Sociology without laughing? But those are the texts I was given to red, and to be tested-upon in exams, a generation ago.
What about a petition against books which advocate circumcision? Put the Bible at the top of the list and the Koran second.
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & THE SIEGE OF BRITAIN POLITICAL JOURNAL.
Signed.
Signed. Count is now 19,142