FSTDT Forums
Community => Religion and Philosophy => Topic started by: rageaholic on January 08, 2012, 10:12:35 am
-
Here's a thread dedicated to those psychos who use the bible to justify child abuse. They recieved some attention since there's been kids killed by parents who used his book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vGHOOzokI
Of course I don't think we can blame Michael Pearl for the deaths of the children, but we can blame him for advocating harmful "discipline" techniques in the name of god. For those who don't want to spend money on his book just to prove you read it, check out the video below of one of his child training sessions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNv61rb7TNc
You know, for kids!
He filed a DMCA against the original uploader, but fortunately there were copies that were reuploaded to expose this freak for what he is.
-
Why is this freak not in a cage?
-
because he does it for GAWD! Seriously, you can get away with fucking anything by claiming it's for GAWD!
-
I've robbed my local bank for YAHWEH, but it didn't stop me from going to jail.
Discrimination!
-
Of course I don't think we can blame Michael Pearl for the deaths of the children, but we can blame him for advocating harmful "discipline" techniques in the name of god.
Nope, I think we can blame him for it.
He's absolutely unrepentant about it, his methods directly caused it, even if he wasn't the one doing them...
At some point, one goes beyond quack to being someone whose very actions cause the deaths of children, albeit indirectly.
-
Yeah the Pearls should be in jail. If only for advocating child abuse. Unfortunetly, there's no law against advocating shit.
Ironbite-more's the pity.
-
Wow, just fucking WOW. And the end was just like a kick in the head on top of all of it. How do people not see these folks for the scumbags they are?
-
I've robbed my local bank for YAHWEH, but it didn't stop me from going to jail.
Discrimination!
You pissed him off by putting vowels in his name. You're just lucky he didn't see to it that your entire race was wiped from the Earth. He used to do that, but I think he's chilled out a little bit.
-
See, these people just make me angry. I am not opposed to corporal punishment. I was spanked maybe 5 or 6 times in my entire life. It was always with a bare hand. Of those times, they were serious things that I did that needed to get my attention. I don't fault or dislike my parents for it, or hold any hard feelings.
Now, I don't intend to have children, but if I did, I would do everything I could to not have to spank my child. For dreadfully serious things, just to get their attention with a swat might be an option.
I can also understand the fact that children do need some form of discipline when they are raised. You don't need to spank your children to instill a sense of discipline.
What these two advocate just makes me sick. The fact that they want the kids to go and select the switch they will be beaten with is even crazier. It does mental damage along with physical and the amount of force they advocate using is just unacceptable. In my mind, corporal punishment shouldn't really hurt that much.
I really hope that these people get brought to some sense of justice. They are responsible for the death of a child through their teachings, and they have undoubtedly caused the suffering of hundreds, if not thousands of children. People who hurt children...or advocate the harm of children just make my blood boil.
Gah,
-
I posted that topic on them, and it wasn't just one child. It was three...
If I see the Pearls in danger, I'll rescue the kids and leave the 'rents at the mercy of the elements. The very fact that people take their advice seriously gives me little hope for humanity.
I wouldn't mourn if Set Abominae took them out (You'll have to figure out that reference yourselves).
-
every friggin' time i see these two (or hear about the horrific things they inspire) i loose just a little bit more faith in humanity. How this animal and his wife aren't incarcerated by this point is beyond me.....
-
That's honestly what I don't get either. You would think these assholes would have gotten into some trouble with the law, but honestly, I don't think it can really come back to them. Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids. Which sucks. Major ass.
-
I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids. Which sucks. Major ass.
Indeed.
And the saddest thing, I think, is that neither they nor their brain washed "followers" are ever going to see the truth of the harm their actions actually do.
Even with closer and more intense media scrutiny , public outrage, and condemnation from other christians, they will shrug off any criticism with a healthy dose of christian persecution complex syndrome.
-
You obviously have problems if you feel the need to controll people through physicall force.
-
Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids.
Wouldn't it be incitement to violence? Because, you know, he's telling people to be violent?
-
Never heard of them until they forced YouTube to delete almost every Everything is Terrible video off the site. After learning about them more... I am angered and saddened that those two idiots aren't in jail yet.
-
Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids.
Wouldn't it be incitement to violence? Because, you know, he's telling people to be violent?
Incitement to violence laws don't really exist in the USA. Unfortunately. We'd have Glenn Beck locked up for several life sentences, if we did.
-
Actually any of the right-wing media big wigs would be locked up for several life sentences.
Ironbite-and the airwaves would be oh so much clearer.
-
Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids.
Wouldn't it be incitement to violence? Because, you know, he's telling people to be violent?
Incitement to violence laws don't really exist in the USA. Unfortunately. We'd have Glenn Beck locked up for several life sentences, if we did.
Yeah, they really don't..I was actually looking for laws they could technically be held liable under..They are fairly secure, unfortunately.
-
These people make me sick. I loathe freedom of speech sometimes, when that freedom allows people to spew bullroar like this.
-
Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids.
Wouldn't it be incitement to violence? Because, you know, he's telling people to be violent?
Incitement to violence laws don't really exist in the USA. Unfortunately. We'd have Glenn Beck locked up for several life sentences, if we did.
Well....we'll propose those laws! Petition for then. Injustice? Change the law. Simple. Remember, there is THE LAW OF KARMA! The Pearls will lose, they will. Same for Westboro. Good will win eventually. Don't believe the lie of "The Karma Houdini". How do you know The Zodiac Killer, Torso Killer & Elizabeth Short's killer didn't get brutally murdered, die from an agonizing illness, get arrested for something else & croaked in the Can (or executed) or get mangled in a car wreck or plane crash?
Sure, some evil people may be an exception but for the most part, bad guys get SOME sort of last desserts.
Being one who who acknowledges the concept of an afterlife, the "Karma Houdinis" get the big payback in the next life (a purgatorial hellish existence or a very crappy reincarnation). You don't have to believe this, of course.
The best way to make things right is to fight for it. Sitting around and bellyaching about the Pearls, Hezbollah House, The Phelps Hate Cult, etc. is not gonna change things! You GOTTA CHANGE THE LAWS, thus...NO MORE LOOPHOLES!!!!
-
Just because he writes a book about it, or even preaches it in his sermons, I don't think he can be held liable for what his "followers" actually do with their kids.
Wouldn't it be incitement to violence? Because, you know, he's telling people to be violent?
I think she's right. Wasn't most of what Manson got put away for because he incited his followers to do it? I'm almost positive there are laws on the books in various states holding you liable if you direct someone to do something harmful and they do it.
Edit: From Wikipedia. Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.[1][2]:163–4, 313[3] He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson)
Perhaps they could be charged with something like Conspiracy to commit child endangerment?
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
Except even freedom of speech has its limits. You are free to tell someone you think they are a godless, immoral, faggot who will rot in the bowels of hell for all eternity (it hurt to type that). You are not free, or shouldn't be at least, to order people to kill someone because you believe the previous statement.
Another example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area. Your free speech ended the moment you put people in danger.
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
Except even freedom of speech has its limits. You are free to tell someone you think they are a godless, immoral, faggot who will rot in the bowels of hell for all eternity (it hurt to type that). You are not free, or shouldn't be at least, to order people to kill someone because you believe the previous statement.
Another example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area. Your free speech ended the moment you put people in danger.
Sure, if there is no fire. The Pearls (presumably) don't believe what they are doing is akin to a false alarm.
-
Who said one has to believe they're causing danger to actually cause danger?
-
Who said one has to believe they're causing danger to actually cause danger?
nO ONE, BUT TO BE STOPPED FROM DOING SOMETHING, THEY HAVE TO BE PROVEN LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM
Oops, sorry caps
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
Except even freedom of speech has its limits. You are free to tell someone you think they are a godless, immoral, faggot who will rot in the bowels of hell for all eternity (it hurt to type that). You are not free, or shouldn't be at least, to order people to kill someone because you believe the previous statement.
Another example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area. Your free speech ended the moment you put people in danger.
Sure, if there is no fire. The Pearls (presumably) don't believe what they are doing is akin to a false alarm.
Except children have died because of their methods. Methods that are patently child abuse. If the parents of the children can be charged with child abuse for acting upon the Pearls' instructions then the Pearls are guilty of conspiracy to commit child abuse.
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
Except even freedom of speech has its limits. You are free to tell someone you think they are a godless, immoral, faggot who will rot in the bowels of hell for all eternity (it hurt to type that). You are not free, or shouldn't be at least, to order people to kill someone because you believe the previous statement.
Another example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area. Your free speech ended the moment you put people in danger.
Sure, if there is no fire. The Pearls (presumably) don't believe what they are doing is akin to a false alarm.
Except children have died because of their methods. Methods that are patently child abuse. If the parents of the children can be charged with child abuse for acting upon the Pearls' instructions then the Pearls are guilty of conspiracy to commit child abuse.
Hey, I agree, but to restrict somewones freedom of speech, you gotta have a proven causal link. Has such a link been established in a couirt of law?
-
I mean we live in societies where alcohol companies are allowed to advertise freely...
-
Said it on the old forums... so once again, repugnant as I find the Pearls personally, freedom of speech, its not just for people you agree with.
Except even freedom of speech has its limits. You are free to tell someone you think they are a godless, immoral, faggot who will rot in the bowels of hell for all eternity (it hurt to type that). You are not free, or shouldn't be at least, to order people to kill someone because you believe the previous statement.
Another example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded area. Your free speech ended the moment you put people in danger.
Sure, if there is no fire. The Pearls (presumably) don't believe what they are doing is akin to a false alarm.
Except children have died because of their methods. Methods that are patently child abuse. If the parents of the children can be charged with child abuse for acting upon the Pearls' instructions then the Pearls are guilty of conspiracy to commit child abuse.
Hey, I agree, but to restrict somewones freedom of speech, you gotta have a proven causal link. Has such a link been established in a couirt of law?
Are we talking United States or UK? Because those laws are apparently on the books in the UK. Oregon appears to have a law regarding free speech as it relates to sex crimes.
And alcohol advertisements are subject to censorship within the definitions of the laws. Things like not advertising to minors. Not encouraging people to drink and drive. Things like that.
-
I'm talking about natural law in free societies... you can't just say "you're not allowed to say that" unless you can provide a damn good reason, no?
-
Really? Are you really making this argument or are you so entrenched in playing devil's advocate that you can't see where the line of good, decent common sense gets drawn?
Children died. Children, let me highlight that for you, Died, and that too. Because of their advice children are dead.
At what point in time can anyone advocate that free speech becomes more important than a child's life?
-
Really? Are you really making this argument or are you so entrenched in playing devil's advocate that you can't see where the line of good, decent common sense gets drawn?
Children died. Children, let me highlight that for you, Died, and that too. Because of their advice children are dead.
At what point in time can anyone advocate that free speech becomes more important than a child's life?
Again, while I agree with what you're saying personally, I ask again, has it been proven that kids have died because of the Pearls? To the standards of a court?
Yeah, I think the Pearls are first order arseholes, but it is possible that the kids who died died because their parents were terrible. Maybe those kids would have died at their parent's hands anyway.
Let me try it another way... what if a fundie believed, just as firmly as you or I believe the Pearls are bad news, that homosexual parents lead to kids being killed. You think that fundie should be able to limit free speech relating to homosexual rights regarding parenting because of unproven belief?
-
Really? Are you really making this argument or are you so entrenched in playing devil's advocate that you can't see where the line of good, decent common sense gets drawn?
Children died. Children, let me highlight that for you, Died, and that too. Because of their advice children are dead.
At what point in time can anyone advocate that free speech becomes more important than a child's life?
Again, while I agree with what you're saying personally, I ask again, has it been proven that kids have died because of the Pearls? To the standards of a court?
Yeah, I think the Pearls are first order arseholes, but it is possible that the kids who died died because their parents were terrible. Maybe those kids would have died at their parent's hands anyway.
Let me try it another way... what if a fundie believed, just as firmly as you or I believe the Pearls are bad news, that homosexual parents lead to kids being killed. You think that fundie should be able to limit free speech relating to homosexual rights regarding parenting because of unproven belief?
Would the fundie be able to prove it in a court of law? Would they be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality was why the child was killed? Not because of glaring neglect but because the parents thought that they some how had to sacrifice their kids to Jehovah or something to absolve themselves?
Prove that to me and we'll talk. Considering there are topics on this forum about how homosexuals might actually make better parents than the average straight couple I don't think you can do it and neither could they.
On the other hand, children died because of abuse. The abuse that was outlined by the Pearls. Their method of madness when dealing with children directly led to the deaths of children. That points to conspiracy to commit child abuse.
An example along a similar vein. My uncle used to own a book that taught you how to make bombs, ranging from the standard pipe bomb to a smoke bomb that allegedly could douse two city blocks in thick smoke. While the book didn't explicitly say to go out and use these for terrorist acts I have no doubt if a similar book were to be published today, and someone used the bombs outlined in the book, that the author and publishers could be arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorism.
-
Really? Are you really making this argument or are you so entrenched in playing devil's advocate that you can't see where the line of good, decent common sense gets drawn?
Children died. Children, let me highlight that for you, Died, and that too. Because of their advice children are dead.
At what point in time can anyone advocate that free speech becomes more important than a child's life?
Again, while I agree with what you're saying personally, I ask again, has it been proven that kids have died because of the Pearls? To the standards of a court?
Yeah, I think the Pearls are first order arseholes, but it is possible that the kids who died died because their parents were terrible. Maybe those kids would have died at their parent's hands anyway.
Let me try it another way... what if a fundie believed, just as firmly as you or I believe the Pearls are bad news, that homosexual parents lead to kids being killed. You think that fundie should be able to limit free speech relating to homosexual rights regarding parenting because of unproven belief?
Would the fundie be able to prove it in a court of law? Would they be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality was why the child was killed? Not because of glaring neglect but because the parents thought that they some how had to sacrifice their kids to Jehovah or something to absolve themselves?
Prove that to me and we'll talk. Considering there are topics on this forum about how homosexuals might actually make better parents than the average straight couple I don't think you can do it and neither could they.
On the other hand, children died because of abuse. The abuse that was outlined by the Pearls. Their method of madness when dealing with children directly led to the deaths of children. That points to conspiracy to commit child abuse.
An example along a similar vein. My uncle used to own a book that taught you how to make bombs, ranging from the standard pipe bomb to a smoke bomb that allegedly could douse two city blocks in thick smoke. While the book didn't explicitly say to go out and use these for terrorist acts I have no doubt if a similar book were to be published today, and someone used the bombs outlined in the book, that the author and publishers could be arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Dude, thats entirely my point... the fundie can't prove that homosexual parents result in dead children, and neither you nor I have proved that the Pearls methods lead to dead children. If its been proven to court standard, OK, then maybe there's grounds, but unless I missed it, such a causal link hasn't been proven beyond the court of opinion of people like you and me.
Your sigline lauds science, but is there scientific evidence that the Pearls are actually responsible for any deaths? (not that I'm saying they're not, but that I don't like the idea of silencing people because we don't like what they say)
And for the record, I believe that how explosives and CBR weapons systems work should be freely available information.
-
By the way, How to Build a Nuclear Bomb (http://www.amazon.com/How-Build-Nuclear-Bomb-Destruction/dp/1560256036) freely available on Amazon.
-
What part of advocating beating children flew over your head? Michael Pearl called it a "magic wand". He advocated not only beating the children but making them pick out their implement of torture, inflicting not only physical trauma but psychological as well.
Did you not watch the CNN video at the beginning of this thread? "Lydia was so severely beaten she died of a condition normally associated with earthquakes and bombings." When asked what would cause the Schatzs to beat, terrorize and torture their children Mike Ramsey, the district attorney of Butte County in northern California, had this to say. The book by Mr. Pearl. There's no doubt about that.
There is causation that beating the child, in a manner advocate by Mr. Pearl, led to the child's death. I think I've just proven a link to any sane, rational human being on the planet.
No one has ever proven that homosexuality itself harms children.
-
I think the point is, plenty of parents use the Pearls' methods, and while I personally find it morally reprehensible to spank a child, it is within their legal right to do so. Plenty of parents use the Pearls' methods, plenty of parents spank their children. Relatively few beat their children to death. Those parents who do, probably would have anyway, regardless of who told them it was okay to spank. The Pearls may be total assholes, but legally they aren't responsible for a few people taking what they say too far.
-
What part of "prove it" flew over yours?
Had a real "wit of the stairs" moment after l logged out last night, who do you think is responsible for more deaths, the Pearls or Jenny McCartney? Yet l don't see many people seeking to curtail her freedom of speech.
-
What part of "prove it" flew over yours?
Had a real "wit of the stairs" moment after l logged out last night, who do you think is responsible for more deaths, the Pearls or Jenny McCartney? Yet l don't see many people seeking to curtail her freedom of speech.
In America it's not a crime to refuse to vaccinate your child. Some states even offer religious or philosophical exemption forms for kids attending school.
Beating children to death, on the other hand, is a crime.
-
I contend that Pearl and eMcCartney are equally at fault in the deaths they cause through their speech, but neither actually advocate yhe killing of children. You may wish to wax semantic about the legalities involved in vaccination, but l contend that the causal link between death and avoidable childhood illness is more firmly established then that between constructive discipline and death. Again hate the Pearls, despise their philosophy, but freedom of speech, l don't believe that anything the Pearls say can be proven to warrant, censorship, no matter our personal ferlings on the matter.
-
I contend that Pearl and eMcCartney are equally at fault in the deaths they cause through their speech, but neither actually advocate yhe killing of children. You may wish to wax semantic about the legalities involved in vaccination, but l contend that the causal link between death and avoidable childhood illness is more firmly established then that between constructive discipline and death. Again hate the Pearls, despise their philosophy, but freedom of speech, l don't believe that anything the Pearls say can be proven to warrant, censorship, no matter our personal ferlings on the matter.
The only reason I agree with the highlighted part is because it's easier for law enforcement to track down violent material if it's out in the open. Censoring it would simply drive the sale of these books underground but wouldn't stop the determined people (the ones who REALLY want to beat their kids) from buying them.
There is a firmly established link between corporal punishment towards children and psychological problems later in life. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2002/06/spanking.aspx (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2002/06/spanking.aspx)
-
What part of advocating beating children flew over your head? Michael Pearl called it a "magic wand". He advocated not only beating the children but making them pick out their implement of torture, inflicting not only physical trauma but psychological as well.
Did you not watch the CNN video at the beginning of this thread? "Lydia was so severely beaten she died of a condition normally associated with earthquakes and bombings." When asked what would cause the Schatzs to beat, terrorize and torture their children Mike Ramsey, the district attorney of Butte County in northern California, had this to say. The book by Mr. Pearl. There's no doubt about that.
There is causation that beating the child, in a manner advocate by Mr. Pearl, led to the child's death. I think I've just proven a link to any sane, rational human being on the planet.
The Pearls have sold hundreds of thousands of copies of their book. There's been only a handful of deaths caused by people who read those books, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong).
People who buy and follow the advice of the Pearls are likely to already be people who would resort to beating their children as punishment. Children being beaten to death happened before the Pearls published their book. Presumably some would still have happened regardless of the book being published. And they would have happened to people who are likely to beat their children, obviously, which are the Pearl's audience. So, it's perfectly possible that in a hypothetical universe where the Pearls never published their book, this same deaths happen to the same people, meaning that in fact the Pearls did not cause those deaths.
Now, this is only a sketch of an argument. I don't have the numbers of deaths due to corporal punishments before and after To Train up a Child was published, so it could be that the numbers increase substantially and only among Pearl readers. The point is that the information presented is not enough to establish a causal link between these deaths and the Pearls, so it's hasty at best to talk about removing their freedom of speech.
(The anti-vaccination movement causing deaths, by contrast, has been clearly established by comparing deaths due to preventable diseases now and before among populations with access to vaccines.)
-
Maybe all copies of the book should be published with a foreword about how following the discipline techniques described therein constitute child abuse in many jurisdictions and have been linked to several cases of beating deaths of children.
The book can stay in print, but has to acknowledge that following those guidelines is NOT a good idea. Kind of in the same way cigarettes are still sold but have to carry a warning about how smoking them for a long time can kill you.
-
Maybe all copies of the book should be published with a foreword about how following the discipline techniques described therein constitute child abuse in many jurisdictions and have been linked to several cases of beating deaths of children.
The book can stay in print, but has to acknowledge that following those guidelines is NOT a good idea. Kind of in the same way cigarettes are still sold but have to carry a warning about how smoking them for a long time can kill you.
Problem: there are tons of copies of his book that are already in circulation without it. Besides, if those cig warnings don't stop people, I have little reason to believe a warning would actually do anything.
-
Actually, much like mandatory warnings on cigarette packets, l think thats a really good idea.
-
People who buy and follow the advice of the Pearls are likely to already be people who would resort to beating their children as punishment. Children being beaten to death happened before the Pearls published their book. Presumably some would still have happened regardless of the book being published. And they would have happened to people who are likely to beat their children, obviously, which are the Pearl's audience. So, it's perfectly possible that in a hypothetical universe where the Pearls never published their book, this same deaths happen to the same people, meaning that in fact the Pearls did not cause those deaths.
This. I have read To Train Up A Child and I believe in corporal punishment and discipline. I don't agree with everything in this book and I do believe that the Pearls sincerely think that they are providing sound advice and have a desire to help parents raise their kids effectively. Now, one of the problems is that they wrote their book based on their experience and their results and how it was successful for them and in doing so, wanted to share their techniques to the world. However, once they had their book published and put into the hands of the public, it is what the readers make out of it and how they implement his instructions. Some may be able to follow it within the guidelines and not cross the boundary of child abuse while others have gone overboard and actually harmed and even killed their kids. Those parents that stay within the reasonable boundaries are usually good parents and know that there are limitations on punishment. The other parents probably are the type that had an abusive personality in the first place.
In the book, Pearl often talks about not punishing your kids while you are angry but instead wait a few minutes and then punish them in a more calm and rational state of mind. I feel that many who have read this book and implementing the methods probably have punished their kids out of anger, causing more injury to the child. He also talks about discussing the punishment with the child afterwards, explain why and to let them know that you love them. IOW, I do believe that those that have gone overboard have probably skipped or forgot those parts.