"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message
...
Dennis Hancock wrote:

No Gerald, it is KANE who has made a lot of claims. Consider the
absolute
nonsense of what you propose.. KANE claims that a practice which has
been
acceptable throughout history is harmful, yet you want ME to
substantiate
that it is not???

The absolute nonsense is in your assertion. You have asserted that Kane's
knowledge IS faulty. Well, whether his knowledge really is or isn't
faulty, you
are unable to take the next step and substantiate your assertion by
showing how
you have proven that it is faulty or how you know that it is faulty. The
only
next step you would be able to take is to say "But his knowledge is not
consistent with my beliefs!"

So instead, you offer nothing to substantiate your statement because you
have
nothing to offer, except that spanking has been acceptable throughout
history,
which is not necessarily a true statement. But if it were true, how does
that
validate it as an acceptable practice? Smoking and drinking have been
around for
a long time too. Does that somehow mean they are not harmful?

Yawn.. Do you have a clue as to any sort of relevance in debating, or do
you simply stand up for anyone who makes any sort of claim so long as you
believe as they do?

I and many others have shown the faulty logic of Kane, over and over again,
and he has flip flopped time and time again.

YOU, as Kane, also attempt to confuse spanking with abuse.. and by doing so,
are trying to put in an argument which has no merit.


KANE claims that he has so damned much 'experience' when it eventually
boiled down to his own limited observations.

For decades, he's worked in a field where he's gained a wealth of
experience
associated with this topic. Except for the fact that his experience runs
counter
to what you want to believe, what do you have that counters the knowledge
he has
gained from his experience? "But his knowledge is not consistent with my
beliefs," doesn't cut it.

BULL****.. He's been shown to be a liar time and time again. I have worked
in with children for ages.

Consider your 'expert' in his field... he's a damned horse trainer.. and
he's 'worked' with children of the rich and powerful. IF that's true, they
must not be so rich and powerful if they allow a horse trainer to tend to
the emotional needs of their children.

How ****ing stupid do you and Kane think we are in this group?

A 'retired Air Force Colonel', who has also spent his life working with
children, who has little or no concept of discipline or how it works. Give
me a break.


KANE claimed that rich or powerful people never spanked their children,
(based upon his own fraternizing with a few in his lifetime) and wants
proof
that throughout history of ANY of the great leaders being spanked.

From my observations, most people (in the US) have embraced spanking, but
the
ones who spank the most, the hardest, and are the most abusive and
unreasonable
with their parenting methods are the uneducated, the poor, the less
powerful,
etc. Did Kane actually say that rich and powerful people never spank?
From
real examples, I know that's untrue and I'd be really surprised if you
could
show me where Kane actually said that.

Just google back and you'll see that he has repeatedly made the claim that
he's 'known and associated with the rich and powerful for many years and
that there is no evidence that they ever embraced spanking or corporal
punishment for their children'.

Of course, for one who only reads what they want to read, and interprets it
as they see fit, you certainly would miss a lot of the nonsense he has put
forth.


Common
sense would tell you that the wealthy and powerful would not stray from
acceptable practices of the period, and in fact, most literature points
out
that many were schooled in private institutions, most of which DID in
fact,
use corporal punishment for disciplinary actions.

Show me where Kane said the rich and powerful never spank.

LOL.. are you blind? He has stated it in several recent posts.


Then, both you and he avoid the separation between a swat on the behind
with
the open hand as a means of teaching a young child to avoid a dangerous
situation, and the use of spanking for older children to instill
discipline,
with outright abuse.

The only separation is the degree of abuse. The only dangerous situation
you
teach a young child about with spanking is that the parent is dangerous
and that
the child must use caution when the parent is present. If he's going to do
behavior that's questionable, he's likely to wait until the perceived
danger
(the parent) isn't present.

No, again you are completely dishonest. You want to portray ALL spanking as
abuse, and TRY to portray that there is no difference. It was YOU who came
up with the complete nonsense that disciplining a child or trying to keep
them from dangerous situations is 'imposing the will of a controlling adult'
on them... such utter nonsense. I don't know why anyone even bothers with
your OR Kane.


Only a fool would spank his two year old for venturing into the street,
and
thereafter, believe the child is now safe to leave alone near the street.
You
can't pass the responsibility for young children's safety to them if
they're too
young to accept that responsibility. If he's your child, his safety is
your
responsibility. There's no getting around that. When he's mature enough to
accept responsibility for his own safety, he's not going to have to be
spanked
to accept that.

LOL.. You my friend are the fool if you think you can 'talk' to a two year
old and keep them from venturing into the street. You, like Kane seem to
think that children don't even have the instictive sense which many animals
exhibit to learn from even slight pain and discomfort that something can be
injurious to them.

Yet morons like yourself think that Kane did the 'right' thing by sitting
back on his sorry ass while his daughter climbed up on a fence, in clear cut
jepardy of being mauled by a bull an did absolutely nothing .... ANY parent
worth their salt would have gotten their child out of harms way immediately,
even if it meant putting themselves in danger.



I have dealt with hundreds and hundreds of children, both abused and non
abused, and I can assure you, most of the parents in this group can tell
you
that each child responds differently and no one single method works for
every child, even within the same family.

Define what you mean by "works." By works, do you mean "makes parenting
and life
easier for the parent?"

Apparently, you have never been a parent or you wouldn't ask such a lame
assed question.


Or, "makes the child obedient to the parent's will?"

Geez.. what a stupid assertion. I suppose YOU let your child make every
decision for themselves.. That is complete irresponsibility from any decent
parent's viewpoint.

Or,
"makes the child "act" in ways that please the parent?" Or, "allows the
parent
to break the child's will?" I believe my definition of "works" is probably
quite
different from yours. What's your definition?

YOu sir are a complete and utter ass. Apparently, you are more concerned
with YOUR needs than your childs.

Any moron who thinks that they can simply tell a child not to go into the
street at a very young age is completely irresponsible and dangerous to that
child. You, like Kane have a very limited conception of the reality of
children testing the limits to see what they can and cannot get away with.


Some of us accept that parenting is difficult and that there's no shortcut
that's going to make it easier. I personally didn't want my children to be
non-thinking robots who responded to me automatically to avoid pain.

No, I suppose you would prefer to see them laying dead because you did not
do your job as a parent and teach them to avoid dangerous situations.

I preferred
them to grow up to be fully capable of thinking for themselves.

You mean being manipulative little *******s who know they can get their way
and not have any consequences from daddy because he doesn't care enough to
discipline them or set limits for them.


What's the real
point, other that blind selfishness, in having them put on behavioral
"acts" in
your presence and for your benefit?

Bull****. If you believe that, then you are truly beyond any sense of
rationality.


No one is proposing abusive treatment of children, as you and Kane seem
to
try to portray and you cannot capture the high moral ground by avoiding
the
distinction between abuse and spanking.

Sure you are. Tell me what you think the dividing line is between abuse
and
spanking?

DUH.. dumbass.. the laws are quite clear and concise on what constitutes
abuse and corporal punishment. Any striking of the child with anything
other than the palm of the open hand, ANYWHERE other than the behind is
abusive.

Thanks for showing everyone that you are doing EXACTLY what I said you and
Kane were doing, attempting to gain high moral ground by dishonestly
accusing others of promoting violence and abuse, when I have repeatedly
stated that I am not in favor of abuse, but by attempting to lump the two
together, you think it will make your position more viable. You are too
obvious.


I argue vehemently because it is precisely this nonsense that people
like
yourself and Kane try to imply that all spanking is abusive by avoiding
the
separation of such and attempt to put yourselves upon high moral ground.

Again, I want to know what you think the dividing line is between abuse
and
spanking. How do you define abuse?

I already have.. Time and time again. You continue to show your complete
lack of reading comprehension.


And I DO take a long hard look at the truth and how people like you have
created a generation of children who lack respect or discipline in their
lives simply because you've coddled them to the point of not being able
to
deal with reality.

But what do you actually see through your blindfold of deeply rooted,
misconceived beliefs that have no basis in reality? You're certainly not
looking
at truth. Try taking the blindfold off by asking yourself why you must
maintain
a tight grip on your beliefs.

Nope, it is you and your lil friend Kane who continue to misconstrue
everything that is said, flip flop back and forth and try to put up straw
men by trying to get others to 'back up' or substantiate your bull****
claims, which you and he have made.

If you have read this group for any length of time, you would know I have
changed my position on several major issues when others have shown a logical
and reasonable reason for their beliefs. But people like you and Kane
continue to lie and attempt to portray any and all discipline of children as
abusive.. it is not.. NOT to discipline a child or set limits is the truly
abusive thing, you are living in a fairy tale world. Keep on believing it
because I doubt you are swaying anyone to your nonsense.


Start by going for patience and understanding. Parenting is pure science,
as
much as physics and chemistry are science. There are reasons for a child's
behavior, reasons for motivation, reasons for expression of feelings,
including
anger and resentment, reasons why we turn out the way we do.
Yawn.. what the hell makes you think anyone gets 'angry' simply because
they discipline their child? Oh yeah, right.. just sit back calmly while
your child dashes into the street, or sits on a fence and is approached by
an angry bull and your a 'good parent'.


Your beliefs about
the use of pain in parenting were most likely because of how YOU were
raised as
a young child. Children raised without abuse do not grow up motivated to
pass it
on to the next generation. It's up to you to break the cycle.

-Jerry-

Bull**** Jerry. *I* was never abused as a child. I was spanked, there is a
huge difference that only a fool or a liar can ignore.

You have no moral high ground to stand on.. you only show your complete and
utter ignorance of children and their differences. Keep on reading all the
psychobabble and learn parenting from Dr. Ruth and pretend you have all the
answers. You don't.