On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:19:23 -0600, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:
0:-] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:32:33 -0600, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:
0:-] wrote:
On 22 Feb 2007 16:32:17 -0800, "Greegor" wrote:
Is this a SPANKING issue?
Why was it posted ONLY to alt.parenting.spanking ???
Oh, maybe because spanking is falling into more and more disfavor,
with less of it going on.
And:
"The youngest teenagers (presumably those raised with the most modern
attitudes) show the biggest declines of all. Over the last 30 years,
rape arrest rates have fallen by 80% among Californians under age 15,
much larger than the 25% drop among residents age 40 and older."
The claim that "youth is running wild," has been around since it was
popular to claim it in ancient Rome.
The truth is the less corporal punishment the less youth crime, Greg.
Correlation does not imply causation..
Oddly you are wrong. In fact, correlation is one of the contributing
parts of findings of causation, but this is a popular comment to make,
and you made it.
The statement "correlation does not imply causation" is inarguably true.
Nothing is "inarguably true."
Please show support for that claim.
Likewise, the statement "Correlation suggests a link to causation" is
equally true.
Yes. Though it too is not "inarguably true."
You stated "The truth is the less corporal punishment the less youth crime".
This is true, but you statement suggests causation, without support.
I'm always facinated by argument posed by projection and reframing the
oppenent.
I made no such claim. "Suggests" is YOUR claim, not mine.
I did not suggest causation, nor does my statement do so, except by
your opinion of it. You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't argue
much with opinions.
Had you stated "There is good evidence that the less corporal punishment
the less youth crime", particularly with citations of the evidence, I
would have had no reason to post.
Then presume that was my meaning. You seem willing to "presume" other
things I didn't say, or mean...why not this?
I would, however, respond, if I were my own opponent, to that
statement with, "show the evidence please."
I intentionally used a mixture of possible, arguable and ridiculous true
correllations to point out the validity of the the statement
"Correlation does not imply causation."
You can't really believe I wasn't aware of that immediately, now can
you?
Correlations, statistically examined reach the point of being accepted
as cause in many instances.
"Lies, damned lies and statistics" g.
The book by Darrell Huff sits just about 6 inches from my left hand as
I type this. It's red, and a very old copy, well worn and wrinkled
from dealing with the Doans of the world. 0:-]
Statistical evidence can support a hypothesis, but can never prove it.
Stating the obvious. Do you presume I'd argue otherwise?
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned is proven conclusively. The "science"
of the middle ages is viewed as we will one day far in the future view
the science of today.
It's amazing how very wrong we can find outselves to be...or how very
must the langauge must change and grow to express our new
understanding and findings.
At best, it can support the statement "this may be true by the best
evidence we have avaialble at this time."
Well, we can presume all argument is so limited.
Note, please, that my disagreement is not with your position, but rather
with how you presented your position.
Okay.
Anytime anyone presents anything as the absolute TRUTH, I feel the need
to put one hand on my wallet and look for the nearest exit.
Well, you are now burdened, by me, with showing how my statement
constituted a claim of "absolute TRUTH."
What I said, and you can check in attributions above, is this: "The
truth is the less corporal punishment the less youth crime."
I make no claim of cause. Only that they have been argued by OTHERS
here as to have a link by claims that the less spanking is accepted in
this society the more crime, violent crime, by youth.
The fact is quite the opposite. Youth crime was high at one point, and
has continued to drop over the years, since about 1999, about what one
would find marks a continuing drop in the use of CP on children.
I am not making a claim but refuting theirs.
I am not sure there IS a causal connection. I continue to explore the
possible correlation. But what I do know is THEIR ARGUMENT THAT LESS
SPANKING MEANS MORE YOUTH CRIME is full of holes.
Premise: there is less youth crime currently than formerly.
It is equally valid to say:
No, actually it's not. There must be some logical reasonable
connections or connection.
The less corporal punishment the less youth crime
Violent crime, and other crime, has been causaly linked to childhood
"trauma." Trauma is what cp is about, and it's intent.
The more internet porn the less youth crime
The might actually be a connection. It should be examined.
The greater the violence in video games the less youth crime
Nope. This one has not been examined. Nice try though.
This one could be argued on the structure of the studies conducted.
"Self fulfilling prophecies" are one of the major stumbling blocks in
any such study.
That is why I've never made a causal claim concerning spanking and
crime. I have only pointed out the opposition's weak argument for a
causal link to "less spanking equals more youth violent crime."
The higher the average planetary temperature the less youth crime
RIDICULOUS.
Almost certainly.
The higher the atmospheric concentration of CO2 the less youth crime
Equally ridiculous as the previous.
The higher the median family income the less youth crime
The greater the availability of consensual sex acts the less youth crime
All ridiculous, because there is no logical connection by correlation.
Both these last two are arguable, particularly since you were using sex
crimes as the primary focus of your post.
That itself is arguable. At least some rapes are not sex crimes for
the purpose of having sex.
Logical connections are the reduction in financial and sexual needs to
prompt criminal action.
Your unfamiliarity with this ng has gotten in the way of the argument
between us.
"Rape" in this instance isn't about "sex crimes," but about the claim
that violent crime by youth is linked to failure to spank them.
You must show a track of violence to crime.
Nonsense. Criminal behavior exists in persons who have never been the
victim of violence, and victims of the most horrific violence have
become upright, law abiding individuals.
Of course. That proves nothing.
Many people that drank milk as a child still develop osteoperosis in
late adulthood.
It doesn't prove that one should not drink milk to avoid the
condition...but we are reasonably sure that failure to drink milk in
childhood does result in bone formation problems in adulthood, even in
societies where beyond weaning humans do not consume milk any longer.
Years ago a researcher (he may no longer be alive, or still active in
academia) got a grant to go into the prison population and explore, by
survey, (I presume with permission, view the prisoner's records, as
well as interview) to determine what the incidence of violent crime
was for those imprisoned for it that had NOT experienced a violent
childhood.
You KNOW the answer.
He found NONE. He gave up the research because there was nothing left
to examine. NO subjects were found, who were convicted and imprisoned
for violent crimes, that had not themselves had a violent upbringing.
Having done a little bit of work with this population both in juvenile
and adult systems I concur. I never found a violent criminal that had
not had a violent childhood.
I never found a violent criminal that had a gentle loving non-violent
upbringing.
I did, when I was doing work in mental health find one such person,
but his psychiatric evaluation explained that one.
The violence/crime connection is a factor, but not an absolute.
Well, that is a specious argument. It applies so generally there can
be no argument. Nothing is 'absolute' in the sense of "connection."
And if you'll go back and review my comments and yours, you'll find I
made NO absolute, and you presumed one.
The "truth" as I stated it, had to do with pointing out that the
opposition argument that failure to spank creates young criminals was
my point.
Spanking is a violent
act,and even the users would agree to that, but fight the use of the
language.
The point of CP is to cause PAIN. Causing pain is violent.
Causing injury MAY be violent.
Yes, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
I just had a bit of skin surgery..in office..and it was quite painful.
Neither the doctor, his nurse, or myself engaged in any violence
during the proceedure. I felt most kindly toward him, and he treated
me most kindly.
Pain is frequently an unfortunate side
effect of beneficial behavior.
I don't operate on children. Nor do most parents, even their own.
Are you suggesting that old saw, "I'm doing this for your own good,"
an argument?
Causing pain is not necessarily violent.
I grow weary of the obvious. I hope you get to your point.
Deflowering one's virgin wife
in the marriage bed can very painful, but that is not the intent.
Please examine your language use for clarity.
Emotionally laden terms tend to hamper meaningful discussions.
"Inarguably true,""absolute TRUTH,"Nonsense. Criminal behavior exists
in persons who have never been the victim of violence, and victims of
the most horrific violence have become upright, law abiding
individuals."
Recognize them?
The trends have followed each other very closely.
It used to be, for instance, that while toddlers were spanked (they
still are) it tended to continue on into older age groups as well.
It no longer does.
Read up. Get educated. Learn the truth...or are you afraid you'll lose
all your biases?
R R R R R R RRRRRRRRRRRRR R R ....
Kane
You are to be commended. You did a great job, repeating like a parrot,
the claim of "correlation is not causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation" is not the same as "correlation
is not causation."
If you must parrot, please do so correctly. G
Thank you for the correction.
It does not change your statement one bit from my claim, however. It
is parroting on your part.
An attempt to argue from "authority," where you premise rests on
rewriting what I actually wrote.
I said "truth," you claimed I meant "absolute TRUTH" by attacking the
latter 'statement.'
One I did not make.
And I was not supporting or attacking the facts I related from the
report, but pointing out to Greg that he and his cronies that claim
that failure to "discipline" by the use of corporal punishment will
result in higher crime rates by youth does not hold water.
Problem is correlation is a very useful tool, IF it's used correctly.
Agreed.
Thanks for bringing this up.
I've said it before, though, and I will again.
Kane
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----