Ah yes, all of us benighted ignorant conservative Christian rubes, who don't use Latin, or the jargon appropriate only to logic and statistics classes...
What could we possibly know about kids?
Much better to trust the NYTimes!
Why would they list a Dobson work? Surely he’s the authoritarian devil to them. They (fortunately for our knowledge) didn’t check the author and censor it.
Also, the standard disciplinarian rules of a normal Christian household assume a child who is not already a nut.
How did the gospel deal with the situation of the boy who wandered among the gravestones cutting himself on sharp rocks and hurled himself in the fire? Did Jesus come along saying why didn’t you whip him when it counted? The demon is rebuked, it flees and the boy comes back... NORMAL.
And, for my own peace of mind I think I will stop following this thread. But if what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the living Savior did, does not move you to tears at the combined majesty and mercy of God... I don’t know what will.
Ok, I won't point out the Latin name for the argument above (although I can), as fallacious as it may be. However, it was a clinician who stated that the child was two standard deviations removed from normal on the CU chart, not the NYT. Attempting to attribute it to the NYT on a website where the publication is held in low regard, was a nice effort though. Unless of course it is your serious contention that the NYT has incorrectly represented the diagnostician in question?
Actually your post represents why I do so hate these arguments on FR. They (the arguments) get more emotional as they go along, and don't pretend for a moment that your comments like "benighted ignorant conservative Christian rubes" are anything other than evocative.
I know this is a stretch for many, but it truly is possible to discuss something in depth, even in the presence of deep and passionate disagreement without getting defensive, sarcastic, dismissive or otherwise emotional.