Shocked and sickened by this "parenting" book

[SerenityNow]

This book got passed around out MOPS group when my eldest was little and ended up tearing the group apart.

The thing is, it isn't just one big diatribe advocating child abuse. It is much more insidious than that. If you are reading it cover to cover and you are inclined to give them some credibility because someone you know and trust has recommended the book to you, they present everything in a way that is quite convincing, almost like it is self-evident.

Having experienced abuse in my past, it raised huge red-flags for me. Of course, because of advocating physical discipline but also the mind-games that abusers play to convince you that they are right and you are wrong. It really turns my stomach just thinking about it.

 

[Noodlebear]

I think the book is absolutely terrible, but I actually wouldn't advocate to have it banned. I don't believe in banning books - free speech and all that jazz. People are people and if they're rotten enough to do something like this anyway they don't need a book to tell them how.

Yeah we have free speech but I think hitting babies is seriously crossing a line and writing about it as if it's acceptable behaviour is not on.

 

[Noelle610]

I think the book is absolutely terrible, but I actually wouldn't advocate to have it banned. I don't believe in banning books - free speech and all that jazz. People are people and if they're rotten enough to do something like this anyway they don't need a book to tell them how.

Yeah we have free speech but I think hitting babies is seriously crossing a line and writing about it as if it's acceptable behaviour is not on.

I guess I just fear it would be a slippery slope. Who deems what is acceptable behavior? Obviously the vast majority of decent people believe hitting a baby is wrong, but there are also controversial topics that have strong supporters on both sides of the coin.

 

[Randianne]

I'm totally against this book, but I agree with Noelle. Censorship is a slippery slope. Ideas may make us uncomfortable, but banning them isn't the answer. People speaking out against them is.

 

[Noodlebear]

I think the book is absolutely terrible, but I actually wouldn't advocate to have it banned. I don't believe in banning books - free speech and all that jazz. People are people and if they're rotten enough to do something like this anyway they don't need a book to tell them how.

Yeah we have free speech but I think hitting babies is seriously crossing a line and writing about it as if it's acceptable behaviour is not on.

I guess I just fear it would be a slippery slope. Who deems what is acceptable behavior? Obviously the vast majority of decent people believe hitting a baby is wrong, but there are also controversial topics that have strong supporters on both sides of the coin.

I agree on just generally controversial topics but child abuse is a tad different imo.

 

[Peggy O]

WTF religion is that? Yikes.

 

[CormacksGirl]

"Select your instrument according to the child's size."

So since these authors are adults can we hit them with something nice and big?

With like a telegraph pole?

All joking aside this book is pure evil and extremely dangerous, no way should it have been published

 

[mrs_park]

I'm a Christian but these books shock, appal and horrify me.

For those looking for an alternative "Christian" parenting book, try "Grace Based Parenting" a wonderful book imo.

 

[Piper84]

I think the book is absolutely terrible, but I actually wouldn't advocate to have it banned. I don't believe in banning books - free speech and all that jazz. People are people and if they're rotten enough to do something like this anyway they don't need a book to tell them how.

Yeah we have free speech but I think hitting babies is seriously crossing a line and writing about it as if it's acceptable behaviour is not on.

I guess I just fear it would be a slippery slope. Who deems what is acceptable behavior? Obviously the vast majority of decent people believe hitting a baby is wrong, but there are also controversial topics that have strong supporters on both sides of the coin.

Usually the judiciary. If a book is advocating committing a crime (assault), then surely it can be dealt with without any handwringing about free speech?

Isn't the original petition to stop amazon from selling the book? That's not really the same things as banning it.

 

[Noelle610]

I think the book is absolutely terrible, but I actually wouldn't advocate to have it banned. I don't believe in banning books - free speech and all that jazz. People are people and if they're rotten enough to do something like this anyway they don't need a book to tell them how.

Yeah we have free speech but I think hitting babies is seriously crossing a line and writing about it as if it's acceptable behaviour is not on.

I guess I just fear it would be a slippery slope. Who deems what is acceptable behavior? Obviously the vast majority of decent people believe hitting a baby is wrong, but there are also controversial topics that have strong supporters on both sides of the coin.

Usually the judiciary. If a book is advocating committing a crime (assault), then surely it can be dealt with without any handwringing about free speech?

Isn't the original petition to stop amazon from selling the book? That's not really the same things as banning it.

I guess it's just different in the US. That would never happen. A man who was on trial for murder wrote a book called "If I Did It".

 

[Piper84]

That's about profiting from a crime. This is more about inciting people to commit assault.

In Britain it is an offence to encourage or assist a crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007, and corporal punishment which leaves marks is illegal in England and Wales. In Scotland all corporal punishment against children is illegal. I'm sure it's possible to challenge the sale of this book in court.

If this: https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/nov/11/amazon-ebooks-paedophiles-guide was removed, I'm sure the same can be achieved with the book in question.

 

[Andypanda6570]

This has nothing to do with religion, these people are just crazy.

There are always going to be people from Catholicism, Islam, Judaism that try to support their idiotic ideas in the name of religion. They exploit Islam, the terrorists say they do it in the name of Allah and his prophet Muhammad . Allah and Muhammad did NOT teach violence they taught peace and tolerance. These nuts take religion and use it in a horrible way so they can get followers who believe all this to be true. No religion I know teaches it's followers to kill and hurt people.

I believe these people who wrote the book and follow the book to be brainwashed and just sick people who use religion in a way to justify their mental state, I do believe these people are really sick.. JMO

 

[Noelle610]

I feel like I'm coming off as in favor of this book, which I am most certainly not... I just want to make that clear

Anyway, I am really, really against any kind of censorship. Even prohibiting books that encourage committing a crime. Obviously this crime (abusing children) is something that most rational people would see as unethical, but not all laws are so straightfoward. Where I live - in the state of Maryland in the US - it is illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Should booked that encourage same sex marriage not be sold? I understand that this example doesn't seem obviously relevent to the text in question, but I think any censorship in terms of literature is a slippery slope.

There was a lot of controversy when the "Patriot Act" was instated after 9/11. The government was tracking which books citizens took out from libraries. Some of these books included instructions on how to make bombs! It's crazy, but it's legal. I do feel like there's a slight cultural difference in terms of this issue.

Also, corporal punishment (even if it leaves marks) is not illegal in the US and is still regularly practiced in some areas (most noteably the deep south). That's another argument entirely.

 

[Piper84]

I feel like I'm coming off as in favor of this book, which I am most certainly not... I just want to make that clear

Anyway, I am really, really against any kind of censorship. Even prohibiting books that encourage committing a crime. Obviously this crime (abusing children) is something that most rational people would see as unethical, but not all laws are so straightfoward. Where I live - in the state of Maryland in the US - it is illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Should booked that encourage same sex marriage not be sold? I understand that this example doesn't seem obviously relevent to the text in question, but I think any censorship in terms of literature is a slippery slope.

There was a lot of controversy when the "Patriot Act" was instated after 9/11. The government was tracking which books citizens took out from libraries. Some of these books included instructions on how to make bombs! It's crazy, but it's legal. I do feel like there's a slight cultural difference in terms of this issue.

Also, corporal punishment (even if it leaves marks) is not illegal in the US and is still regularly practiced in some areas (most noteably the deep south). That's another argument entirely.

I am interested in how someone may go about getting this book removed from booksellers' catalogues in the UK, where corporal punishment is still allowed in some areas but where using implements to inflict pain is considered cruel and archaic by most people.

It's an interesting topic and, like a lot of similar ones, doesn't have any simple answers.

I am not for censorship if it means altering books to remove language which is now considered unacceptable as I think it removes any kind of discussion about cultural sensitivity and how things change. Instead of facing up to the fact that people used terms considered racist (or whatever) now in times gone by, the evidence is just removed.

I am for censorship when it comes to violent pornography, inciting violent acts and racial hatred, as well as the decision not to release certain films to the public. As long as it's done transparently, I don't see the problem. There is definitely room for censorship regarding material like in the link I posted.

 

[Noelle610]

I feel like I'm coming off as in favor of this book, which I am most certainly not... I just want to make that clear

Anyway, I am really, really against any kind of censorship. Even prohibiting books that encourage committing a crime. Obviously this crime (abusing children) is something that most rational people would see as unethical, but not all laws are so straightfoward. Where I live - in the state of Maryland in the US - it is illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Should booked that encourage same sex marriage not be sold? I understand that this example doesn't seem obviously relevent to the text in question, but I think any censorship in terms of literature is a slippery slope.

There was a lot of controversy when the "Patriot Act" was instated after 9/11. The government was tracking which books citizens took out from libraries. Some of these books included instructions on how to make bombs! It's crazy, but it's legal. I do feel like there's a slight cultural difference in terms of this issue.

Also, corporal punishment (even if it leaves marks) is not illegal in the US and is still regularly practiced in some areas (most noteably the deep south). That's another argument entirely.

I am interested in how someone may go about getting this book removed from booksellers' catalogues in the UK, where corporal punishment is still allowed in some areas but where using implements to inflict pain is considered cruel and archaic by most people.

It's an interesting topic and, like a lot of similar ones, doesn't have any simple answers.

I am not for censorship if it means altering books to remove language which is now considered unacceptable as I think it removes any kind of discussion about cultural sensitivity and now things change. Instead of facing up to the fact that people used terms considered racist (or whatever) now in times gone by, the evidence is just removed.

I am for censorship when it comes to violent pornography, inciting violent acts and racial hatred, as well as the decision not to release certain films to the public. As long as it's done transparently, I don't see the problem. There is definitely room for censorship regarding material like in the link I posted.

I agree with the highlighted - I think that's the main thing.

 

[Noodlebear]

So you don't agree with censorship but if it's known to be banned/censored then it's fine? Lol

 

[Piper84]

So you don't agree with censorship but if it's known to be banned/censored then it's fine? Lol

Not sure if this is directed to me or Noelle!

 

[Noelle610]

So you don't agree with censorship but if it's known to be banned/censored then it's fine? Lol

I don't agree with censorship, but I can appreciate if certain material is censored (like child pornography) transparently. My main concern with censorship is the regulation of ideas and opinions by the government, so being transparent negates some of these concerns.

 

[Noodlebear]

It was directed at Noelle well physical violence and child pornography are both forms of child abuse so why is censorship of one understandable but not the other? People have the right to an opinion but a book detailing how to assault a child? I don't see how censorship in this instance is anything but good. The last thing mentally unstable aggressors need is a book instructing them on where to start.

 

[Noelle610]

It was directed at Noelle well physical violence and child pornography are both forms of child abuse so why is censorship of one understandable but not the other? People have the right to an opinion but a book detailing how to assault a child? I don't see how censorship in this instance is anything but good. The last thing mentally unstable aggressors need is a book instructing them on where to start.

It depends on what you consider child abuse. I would consider this child abuse, but by the legal definition in the US, it is not. If you're using the judiciary as a guide, it would be illegal to censor this text. There has to be a guideline. My original point, which I still think stands, is that the government should not be able to censor texts at random despite how objectionable most might find them.