You’re not? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to provide the studies you to cited. And you clearly downvoted them. Anybody can view votes on Lemmy using lemvotes. They’re public on Lemmy, that’s why I don’t voting either way though I might move to Piefed when lemm.ee goes offline.
Four times you’ve avoided providing your “sources”.
Votes are public on Lemmy. That’s how I know you went back and downvoted every one of my comments on this post after I called you out for downvoting my one comment.
You started to deflect and refuse to source your claims after I pointed out your hypocrisy and continue to do so.
You could backup your original claims by posting supporting sources, or you could have phrased your original comment as your opinion, which it seems clear now it was.
I don’t know, but it doesn’t automatically have to be malicious. Though I agree that citing the specific studies they were talking about would pretty easily put it to rest.
hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform
I’ve actually spent a fair bit of time looking into studies/insight from the behavioral health world on this matter, and the general consensus seems to be that it’s a profoundly terrible idea.
I have told him multiple times that i am for taking away things when kids don’t listen.
Seems like the definition of hypocrisy. It’s a profoundly terrible idea based on these “studies/insight” you won’t provide yet you do it yourself.
If you bothered with the link I’ve posted 3 times which is sourced, something your own claims aren’t.
I don’t need to resort to personal attacks and deflect when challenged.
Did you read the article linked in their reply? I think the hypocrisy they reference is that you’re okay with taking things away which the sourced article they provide says is ineffective.
Do the studies you’ve read not explain that because the ones cited in the article seem to.
That’s three times you’ve now avoided providing your “sources”.
Removed by mod
You’re not? I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to provide the studies you to cited. And you clearly downvoted them. Anybody can view votes on Lemmy using lemvotes. They’re public on Lemmy, that’s why I don’t voting either way though I might move to Piefed when lemm.ee goes offline.
Four times you’ve avoided providing your “sources”.
Votes are public on Lemmy. That’s how I know you went back and downvoted every one of my comments on this post after I called you out for downvoting my one comment.
You started to deflect and refuse to source your claims after I pointed out your hypocrisy and continue to do so.
You could backup your original claims by posting supporting sources, or you could have phrased your original comment as your opinion, which it seems clear now it was.
If they provide sources your comments are going to look pretty silly.
Maybe, but I don’t think the sources exist. Certainly not specific to the situation I described in my anecdote.
I’d love to read them if they’re real but I pose this question to you:
If they’ve read these studies why would the still use a punishment method on their child that’s been proven ineffective through those same studies?
I know that current methodology is to use positive reinforcement and feedback methods to deal with children’s behavioral issues, why don’t they?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t automatically have to be malicious. Though I agree that citing the specific studies they were talking about would pretty easily put it to rest.
deleted by creator
Still no sources I see.
Taking things away from our kids to help them change their behaviour often looks like taking away privileges, toys, or activities. There are a few reasons why “taking things away” is an ineffective method of discipline.
hy·poc·ri·sy /həˈpäkrəsē/ noun the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform
Seems like the definition of hypocrisy. It’s a profoundly terrible idea based on these “studies/insight” you won’t provide yet you do it yourself.
If you bothered with the link I’ve posted 3 times which is sourced, something your own claims aren’t.
I don’t need to resort to personal attacks and deflect when challenged.
Did you read the article linked in their reply? I think the hypocrisy they reference is that you’re okay with taking things away which the sourced article they provide says is ineffective.
Do the studies you’ve read not explain that because the ones cited in the article seem to.
I don’t need your help on this.