Okay here goes [head in hands]
'It should be easyenoughto identify CC children and test whether or not they trust their parents. The experiment is not complicated.' How would this not be complicated? Speaking of 'trusting' as though it were a simple thing, is ridiculous - you can't just ask someone 'would you lend your Mum a fiver'. The trust [we] are talking about is something that is very hard to quantify.
'If it has never been attempted, maybe the hypothesis is not that credible.
If you can't even be bothered to show that there is evidence that supports your claims, excuse me for not believing a word of it.'
Well, Kalo has referred you several times to the source of her beliefs but you refuse to go and read up, which is fair enough - but you can't expect her to print you out a whole swathe of stuff on here. It's something you'd have to go into in great depth, which you just don't want to, but that's hardly her problem.
' My DC and others I know in RL are counterexamples to this "theory" of yours. If you call yourself a scientist on any level, you should know that even one counterexample disproves a theory.'
Kalo hasn't called herself a scientist on any level! And how exactly have you proved that your children have not been (sorry but) damaged? I'm not saying and I don't think Kalo is saying that they have - what we are saying is that CC creates a potential for damage in some situations and particularly in combination with other factors, but nevertheless that this risk is far from ideal without EVIDENCE that it does NOT harm - and just because some children appear unharmed by it, indeed if most do, it doesn't necessarily mean that damage will NOT be done to some others.
I believe I was damaged by a lack of attachment at birth. That's just one person, one child - but it is relevant imo.
'Some minutes of crying over only a few days does not break trust between mother and baby, any more than holding them down to be vaccinated or leaving them at nursery in maternity ward does.'
I like this 'some minutes'. That's rather vague isn't it. You could be talking 3 minutes or 3 hours. These are the variables that could be seen as incredibly relevant (obviously). And I am not certain that holding a child down to be vaccinated is comparable, firstly because it is (arguably) necessary, secondly it is quick, thirdly it's inescapable that a vaccine will hurt where sleep doesn't have to...and leaving a child at nursery in a maternity ward - sorry, I don't understand what this means exactly, are there nurseries in maternity wards? You'll need to clarify that before I can answer it.
' It is ridiculous to claim that a loving, caring relationship where he is nursed, loved, kept warm, sang to, kept clean, kissed, and cared for will be reduced to nothing because he cried for some minutes'
Nobody is suggesting it is reduced to nothing. People are saying it can be damaged, albeit slightly, and that a child's sense of security can be subtly altered by the use of CC. (or far worse, CIO)
'As for "Is CC good for children?" - it teaches thhem to sleep well, which is a very good thing.' Mine and many, many others sleep perfectly well without it - without being 'taught' to sleep at all.
'Sleeping baby means well rested parents, which means better, more patient, more resourceful parents.' I would concur - but again, sleeping baby does not have to correlate with controlled crying baby.
'In the absence of any evidence that it harms them, yes, it is rather obvious that CC is a good thing.' Nonsense.