What word is the child being admonished for using? Is it "what"? Or "the"? FTR, as someone who doesn't sit around looking to police the language of others, I interpret "What the...?" left dangling as an expression of surprise so great that the speaker doesn't even know how to end the sentence. The phrase *is* ambiguous, as clearly evidenced by the number of interpretations of it in this thread. Had the teacher simply informed the young lady that someone might interpret what she said as a substitute for profanity, I would have not have (much of) a problem with her doing so. What this teacher did WAS out of line, and I would expect an apology, or my child would not be in that class any longer.

There was nothing to correct. The child used a phrase that is ambiguous.

I believe that only applies at arrest. Technically, she was only detained as a suspect in a possible crime, which can be done for a period of time before an arrest has to be made (and yes, that is pre-Patriot Act).

Actually, we don't know what "incidents" refers to exactly. An incident could be as simple as any report of suspicious activity.

DH had to have one front tooth pulled before he got braces when he was 18/19, and he ended up with a beautiful smile. By that age, if there is no room in the mouth for the teeth, there is no chance that the mouth will grow to accommodate them all.

No. Our family policy is to not support hate groups of any kind, and some of HSLDA's politial opinions places them in that category for us.

It seems that I saw something from South Carolina (do they require testing? that is the state name in my head) where they did a comparison of public school scores to homeschool scores. I just glanced at it briefly at the time, but the first thing that stood out to me was that there were no controls for demographic differences between the two populations. There are certain factors that do tend to drive differences in test scores (contrary to what Dr. Rudner said in his dreadful study back in the 90s) that would have to be accounted for to make fair comparisons. The hold up in most cases will always be getting accurate data on the demographics of the homeschool families.

I can't speak for every study as I haven't reviewed all of them, but from the ones I have seen, there was a definite selection bias among the homeschool students sampled (ie their parents either submitted their scores or had to agreed to release them) where the public school scores were the aggregate of all students who were tested. For some of the other studies, the issue was both a selection bias and an issue with using too small of a sample of of homeschooled students. I never read far enough into those studies to determine exactly how the homeschool sample was chosen, but getting a true random sample from that group will always be tremendously difficult.

In football, you cannot completely control which players will be tackling each other. Even on the offensive line, a much larger child will often be in position to lay a significant hit on a smaller player. Weight is not being used to determine health - it is being used as a safety factor for all players. This is also why players below a certain weight cannot play either.

Which doesn't exonerate the Pearls for theirs.

I am sorry, but no. This isn't just bad parenting advice - it is dangerous. Michael and Debi KNOW that, again at the MINIMUM, their advice is being seriously misinterpreted. Their response? Deny, deflect, and keep advocating parenting techniques that are, at best, borderline abusive.

:iagree:

And non-experts who promote themselves as such who provide dangerous advice should also be responsible for their actions. Again, if the Pearls were actually rational, decent people, they would see that at the minimum, some of what they write is being seriously misunderstood.

Nope. No distinction. There is no reason to strike a small child with something purchased at Home Depot. I find it sad and disturbing that you defend the use of the piping. Wow. No, you are quite clearly trying to diminish their twisted teachings. Absolute nonsense. Based on all of their writings, there is no reason to believe that he does not mean that literally. He advocates spanking a child until they have trouble breathing. He advocates beating a child until they fully submit (and an example of lovely doing so to a 15mo old she is babysitting to force him/her to play with a specific toy makes it clear this is not misunderstood). Why on earth would I believe he doesn't mean that literally? If he doesn't perhaps he should quit writing books until he figures out how to express himself correctly? And he isn't Michael Pearl. No one has said the intended to advocate someone should beat their child to death. I do believe that there advice is dangerous, and that their ignorant, uneducated writings display a complete misunderstanding of normal childhood development which can lead others to misapply their "advice". And again, that is why these people have no reason to be giving advice to anyone. Four month olds don't need to be trained. They certainly don't need to be smacked with "piping". There certainly is nothing gentle or normal about advocating such a practice. My children learned boundaries without being beaten with piping.

They do advocate beating a child until they are out of breath. They also teach parents that children are manipulative, sinful creatures. Does that excuse those who go to extremes after reading this garbage? Absolutely not. However, those who write that nonsense are to blame for spreading it to the ignorant.

Babies are for luvvin' and kissin', not for hittin'.

Perhaps if they were decent, caring people, the Pearls would realize that their advice is worded in a way that causes some people to take it to extremes. But they don't. So they aren't.

And not to get political, it is significantly more complex than that simple statement.

Job creation and economic growth.

The Pearls have done an excellent job of convincing their followers that they are being attacked by "nonbelievers" and that the criticism is proof of their Godliness. Of course that isn't even remotely true, but those that follow this type of parenting advice are generally not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Advice like this is why I do see the Pearls as directly culpable in some of these abuse cases.

:iagree: X1,000,000 When I think of the loving hands of Christ, I can't picture a piece of plastic pipe in them being used to beat a child.

No, they are not good people. Good people do not advocate hitting small children with PVC pipe. A good person doesn't give advice like this: "But if your husband has sexually molested the children, you should approach him with it. If he is truly repentant (not just exposed) and is willing to seek counseling, you may feel comfortable giving him an opportunity to prove himself, as long as you know the children are safe. If there is any thought that they are not safe, or if he is not repentant and willing to seek help, then go to the law and have him arrested. Stick by him, but testify against him in court. Have him do about 10 to 20 years, and by the time he gets out, you will have raised the kids, and you can be waiting for him with open arms of forgiveness and restitution. Will this glorify God? Forever. You ask, "What if he doesn’t repent even then?" Then you will be rewarded in heaven equal to the martyrs, and God will have something to rub in the Devil’s face. God hates divorce—always, forever, regardless, without exception." I won't say the Pearls are evil, but I will not accept they are "good people".

They still exist in rural/low income areas where fewer people have cell phones or service is limited, but they are definitely becoming more and more rare every year.

That isn't nearly as clear cut as you are implying.