quote:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what "level" you are talking about. I don't remember discussing "levels". Being upset is being upset. Parents may expose a child to something that they do not like. It is upsetting either physically or emotionally.
OK, now this is just getting silly.
Are you seriously saying that a child is either "upset" or "not upset" in some sort of binary way and that there are no gradations at all?
quote:
I stated in my first post which addressed horses that the commonality was that we were both animals. Training methods for one should be relatively relatable between them.
LOL! Yeah, coz horses and humans have really similar frontal lobes.
Tell me, how much time have you spent interacting with horses?
quote:
Your answer to this question is not sufficient. All I see are assertions on your part.
What, do you want me to provide quotes from expert horse trainers? Do you really think you could understand them.
I hope that you realize that I have a BS in Equestrian Studies and have trained horses professionally in the past, including starting youngsters.
quote:
You say that they can be trained but not well. They don't respond as well apparently. Are you suggesting that one cannot find a trainer with a winning horse and maintains that some form of physical discipline can be necessary on given occassions?
Sure you can. But my definition of a "well-trained" horse doesn't include winning prizes.
quote:
And I have to question your claim as your own avatar shows your horse outfitted with bit and reins, and you are holding a crop.
...and wearing spurs. You missed those. I didn't use them at all during that particular event, but I wore them.
quote:
Now I can assume for sake of argument that you never use that crop, but my guess is you are going to tug on those reins. That would NOT be physical punishment to guide the horse?
ROTFLMAO!
No, using the reins is not punishment. LOL!!
I am sitting here laughing out loud, holmes, because what you don't know about riding and training horses is a lot.
In my avatar picture, I was very close to being run off with. Crockett (that was the little Arabian's name) got incredibly strong and fast during stadium jumping courses, but only at competitions. He was much more mellow at home. I was half-halting nearly every stride on course (and my legs were exhausted by the end of it) just to keep from taking the jumps so flat and having a rail down because of too much speed and not rounding them properly.
I was mostly using my legs and back to check him, not the reins, because if I had actually just leaned back and pulled on his face, he would have just stuck his head in the air and run into the next county.
Now, tell me how much of what I just explained you really understood.
quote:
As it is horses generally must be broken into accepting a rider.
That word "broken" is very misleading. People imagine all sorts of things out of the Wild West involving "bucking broncos" and the like. In these more enlightened, modern times, we like to use the phrase "started under saddle", or "backed".
I cannot think of a worse thing to do to a young horse while starting them than to use pain to punish them. That is simply asking for a huge number of behavior problems that may never be able to be fixed. I know, since I used to have to try to fix them for people.
quote:
Again I can assume for sake of argument that there are some passive methods to gain trust, but the existence of a rider itself is a physical force against the will of the horse.
No, actually by the time one gets on the back of a horse, it should pretty much be no big deal to him. More than anything with some horses it triggers an evolutionary response to run away if any sort of weight is on their back (like a mountain lion).
But unless the trainer is a complete moron, he will not use pain as a punishment at any point along the way of bringing along a green horse. It could very easily ruin it as a saddle horse.
quote:
Driving it on through a race generally requires and is physical punishment.
I hate horse racing.
quote:
It must suffer on the physical level, in order for it to achieve what it is YOU want it to do.
No, not at all. Lots of people push horses to that level, and I do not agree with doing that.
But that is not what I have been talking about, anyway.
I have only ever been talking about why people who advocate hitting children to teach them feel that they need to do it.
quote:
You claim that they respond to threat, but how do they recognize a threat without first understanding what that threat is about?
First evolution, then Mama.
quote:
By the way, you might want to explain how horses are bred, and indeed how they breed without people around. Is that not with some amount of physical punishment involved?
LOL!! "Mommy, mommy, why is Daddy hurting you under the covers??"
While funny, this is even more irrelevant to human parent/child interactions.
Remember the great big frontal lobes we have and the large amount of brain we devote to speech?
quote:
Wives are not destroyed by pain. Much of their early life is learning from many bumps and bruises to avoid things. Pain really works to get one to avoid something. Seems to me that is reasonably one of the reasons it exists. Avoidance of pain, and association of pain, to learn a rule of behavior.
Husbandsare not superhuman. As smart or educated or controlled as they may be, there can be no reasonable expectation that they have all the answers to how to control their wife in every specific eventuality. The wife may confront a husband with a situation calling for some immediate response to set a border (where talking would take way too much time), or a naked contest of wills where they test to see what happens if they go ahead and defy the husband anyway. Indeed there is no reason to assume a wife will not decide to inflict physical pain on others (including the husband) to advance their will.
Sometimes a swat is less subtle and more understandable as a border. I would advocate trying to reason first, when that is applicable, but who is to say that is always possible?
Let me move on to address the husband who always uses force. While I do not necessarily agree with that I cannot necessarily find an issue with taking the "easy" way out. As long as it isn't excessive, that is only used in a consistent and understandable pattern as well as not to the extent of real physical damage... what is wrong with that for them? If they were raised that way and are doing fine and feel it is workable, why not?
quote:
Why is it fear of anything other than crossing that line, like with the horses?
Children, unlike horses, are meant to understand that the person who hits them, loves them. Not only that, but how the parent treats the child is how the child learns to treat who he or she professes to love, and how he or she treats those weaker than them.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
