I for one, did read the article. While the writer claimed the parents were strict—and had followed every kind of advice and book they could get their hands on—nowhere did it indicate that Michael had consistently received serious consequences for his terrible behavior. Spankings to the NYT kind of writer/editor are OF COURSE off limits.
Christian scripture though, says it shouldn’t be. Angry abusive spankings/beatings are usually confused by modern liberals with normal parental discipline, which should never be done in anger. So they do neither, and permissiveness reigns, which is really awful for a willful child.
Kid’s at 1.5 years old will start to test boundries and pull mommy’s chain, as much as possible...depending on the personality of the child. If the terribly violent tantrums brought nothing but pain (spankings) or other thoughtful punishments appropriate to the crime...(and NOT attention—catering-to & doting, which is usually what they’re wanting) then kids learn that its not worth it.
It sounds as if this yuppie couple did just the opposite, doting on and trying to molify the angry child—so he just kept it up (as that’s what he wanted...). When they started out of weariness to not dote—he just upped the volume and time...until they did, again and again and again. The article sounds like the parents’ lack of consistent serious consequences (discipline) really were part of the problem.
The kid’s seeming planned creepiness, and coolly proclaimed hatred for his brother...also make me wonder at what kind of religious ethics the parents have too—as no child should be allowed to express and hold that kind of rank evil attitude, even at age 9. A typical college educated morally-pluralistic couple though, may think otherwise....
SIGH. This boy’s conduct does not evince your typical “spoiled child of liberals.” It goes well into the region of abnormal psychology. Way way off the bell curve. Even the gospels would have referred to such conduct as either crazy or possessed. Not as poor moral training.