As usual with this kind of story, I'm left full of questions:
1. Why do people say "I'm not one to..." when actually they quite obviously are, given that they're doing that very thing? In this case, the complainant says "I'm not one to prevent books from being sold, but..." but, yeah, they're trying to prevent a book being sold.
2. Why do journalists insist on using slang terms that can only confuse an issue? In this case the journo writes that the book in question recommends "thumping" your children as a punishment. WTF? I haven't heard of giving someone a thump for years, but last I did it meant punching them with your fist. If the authors really do recommend punching your children with your fists as some kind of bizarre attempt at imposing discipline on them, then sure, you really, really don't want to be following any of their parenting advice whatsoever. But given that journalists these days often seem to be little more than children themselves, I'm left wondering whether the kids have some new meaning for "thump" that was unknown a few decades back.
3. Why do journalists struggle so with simple concepts like cause and effect? The story says:
International media outlets have reported that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz followed the book's instructions and subsequently beat their seven-year-old adopted daughter to death.
What's that supposed to mean? That the book's instructions include beating your child to death, or beating them to such an extent that death is a distinct possibility? If so, what publisher in their right mind agreed to publish the fucking thing? Or are we looking at yet another post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which b followed a therefore a caused b? A Stuff journalist wouldn't be able to tell you.