On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:23:05 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04...
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04...
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


What you have done is pick and choose portions of the
Old
Testament
to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that
you do
not
like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You
are
trying to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting
them.

Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is
how
is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show
me
one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition,
your
non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do
is
avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How
about
it, Dr. LaVonne?

Doan

The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing
acts of
physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible
goal
when it
is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is
so
obviously
harmful..

Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is
time-honored
and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you.

"Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So,
let's see,
the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the
number
of
people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population
makes
committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth
"time-honored" and
"proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean?


Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years,
especially
since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to
spank a
child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of
discipline
in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem.

This is a myth proven by the ancient's declarations of the same just
because teens going through their angst and separation preparation are
so silly and weird. I engage them all the time, the more dangerous
looking the better. They invariably turn out to be little sweetie pies
trying to look mature...r r r r.

Those that cast them in the role of evil teen would do well to
remember that people will respond as we protray them.

You need to check out the crime rate for teens...it's been going down
for years, along with teen pregnancies.

The media leads a lot of folks astray.

Did you see CBS lead everyone in the country astray about home
schoolers by broadcasting a story of four families (one of which never
WAS a homeschool family) that had the tragedy of murders happen to
them?

It was a complete crock. One family wasn't known to two states child
protective services with drug convictions for the father, and failure
to protect and abuse as well. The state was after them to clean up
their act just before the alleged murder suicide.

Two other cases were clearly mental illness, and the failure was with
other systems, not homeschooling.

We know, if we homeschool and follow it, that children are safer in
those homes than anywhere else. Just in incidence of child sexual
abuse with school teacher and other child caregivers as the perps
shows that....but no story on that.

There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two
completely
different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to
combine.

We don't "combine" them. You apologists and spankers make that claim
about us when we have carefully explained that even YOU folks can't
define the two as separate and in the end horrible beatings get
portrayed as just justifiable corporal punishment.

Please don't try this old line on us.

Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline
and
not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk.

Since the child cannot determine what is dangerous from one incident
to the next unless conditions and the enviroment are exactly the same
you folks completely miss the point. They aren't afraid of the
danger...they are afraid of YOU, the more present and unpredictible
danger.

So they behave when you are around. They don't when you aren't because
they don't know what you want. You take luck as success. Or the
barrier you put up between them and the danger you discount.

No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new
theories.

Really? Who made that rule?

I recall similar claims about slavery and chattel holding, as in women
and children as property.

For
all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went
bad, there
are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and
members of
the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but
are
intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining
them
for their own safety and abusing them.

Well, that's a beautiful declaration, but based on nonsense. Those who
suffered spankings of a low enough order and frequency had a much
better chance of surviving it so that the effects weren't all that
apparent, but they are there, nontheless.

Their native capacity to survive helped them out. But many that got no
more than that really didn't do too well. Look around the world. Tell
me you like the way we treat each other.

Now just how low in spanking intensity and frequency must we go to
improve things?

I'd say give a shot to looking at non-punitive
parenting...developmental support and enhancement, with appropriate
redirection. I've posted recently on this.

And we that don't punish are a bit annoyed that you'd assume because
we don't spank we aren't teaching our children and helping them
survive.

Care to explain the Embry study?

It has applications in other areas as well. There is nothing about the
unwanted behavior of street entry that wouldn't cross over to the
unwanted behavior of touching hot stoves, or not handling our cutlery,
or leaving daddy's sharp tools alone.

All without punishing.

I have to assume, though you may wish to deny it, and of course I
could be wrong, after 45 years or so of observation and analysis, that
you believe as you do as a result of being spanked and the certain
effect on your thinking....as in thinking errors.

It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't
respond any other way but to chuckle. chuckle

Kane