| | Kids should work...
On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:57:34 -0800, Doan wrote:
On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:
Can't stand your own, Kane??? ;-)
I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I
don't need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that
Childish, Kane! ;-)
Being stupid, Kane? ;-)
Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.
So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither".
Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither"
exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.
What's that again? IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH? :-)
No, putting yours back together for you.
So what's the meaning of "neither"?
I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I
admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult
you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is
obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the
I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said
Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking". Please show me
how is that proper English???
Nonsense as usual, spiraling into evasive childishness. You are so
HA! HA! HA! You are the one who is doing the evading! What is the
meaning of "neither", Kane?
That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive
LOL! They are not stupid!
All of "they" or some of "they?" That thing with plurals is
a challenge for you.
ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are.
Are you claiming that "they" then are "all" not stupid? That would be
stupid of you, given that you have done considerable work to cast
doubt on the validity of their studies, even to the point of bringing
the totally ingenuous spoutings of medial researcher whose major
complaint is that they don't "experiment" like his discipline. A major
Evading again, Kane?
Then you go on shortly after, in your redunancy, to demand studies
that examine the efficacy of non CP methods that meet the same
standards of validity and science that YOU JUST POSTED THE GOOD
DOCTORS REFUTATION OF...and you use those same, NOW compromised
studies to support claims of yours.
That old duplicitous, "gotta have it both ways" silliness that is
theme for you.
Sound like the weather
in Colorado must have freezed your brain. Try sunny California! :-)
You know perfectly well I live in neigher place. You've recently been
right here. Enjoy the visit? I did....R R R
LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place!
It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines"
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")
Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!
I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile
hall with the children of families that don't use pain parenting?
Where do you get that?
Avoidance. I "get that" from your sudden romp into
Then you are stupid!
Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!
when I was discussing the use of the term CP that tends to disguise
all the truly vicious things done to children in the name of "loving
You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking!
You just gave a credibility demonstration in who is running from who
in the debates here.
I know. It shows! :-)
It's NOT other posters that run from you, Artful Dodger. It's you that
run even within the posts themselves. You demonstrate it in nearly
every post you post.
Now, if you wish to argue that the term CP isn't a bit diverting from
the truth, a kind of PC term for torture of children, be my
guest...but it's an opinion, not a exploration of the vagaries of
Diversion, again! :-)
Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to
rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming
and more directed away from punishment models?
So juvenile hall is NOT punishment???
Are you completely blind? Where does "more directed away from
punishment models" say punish is missing? I states clearly that I am
aware there is punishment and I recognize that rehab is moving away
from that model.
Are you insane...wait...wrong question. When did you GO insane?
Are you stupid...wait...you have already admitted to that! ;-)
Maybe you are going for the Pity Vote. Damned if I can figure out how
far you'll go in deception before you are truly nuts.
You are just stupid!
And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted
you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply
denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.
Show me the data. I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN!
You are insane., I showed you that you were using violent crime
without accounting for crime. Violence to children doesn't just
produce violent acting out...it up's their overall crime rate.
LOL! So that is why the violent crime WENT UP??? Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)
Do you NEVER tired of posting from your faulty memory or lying?
I haven't developed senility yet. YOU ARE! ;-)
I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be,
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite
of the limits of social science studies.
You are wising up! Good!
No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I'm not
well, but I have a great deal of persistence.
But you admitted to being stupid! ;-)
Absolutely. Everyone is stupid at times. ARE you claiming you are NOT?
Absolutely, stupid! ;-)
After the nonsense you have been posting for years? And the exhibition
you've been putting on for me that past few days?
Yup! To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID!
They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood
defenses and arguments.
I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)
The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone
that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.
I know, including lying!
I have clearly posted, even in this very post, absolutely
incontrovertible proof of your lying, or your mental incapacity.
YOU have not posted a thing that shows I'm lying. Show me.
Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom
and putdowns you use?
ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like
and Steve. You know, let you taste your own ****s! ;-)
Oh, I see. The moral highground goes to the little liar then. Thanks
for the clarity.
You were the one that accused me of lacking morals. Don't you remember,
old fart? ;-)
Of course they cannot actually define the difference other
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.
Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what
Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking
What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?
That's why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor
being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct.
My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that
backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and
admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under
Weasel words again. Are you so dishonest??? ;-)
I am claiming that your answer to The Ouestion, "reasonable
standards," is useless to the need I pointed out for an answer to The
Question. I am showing you WHY that is so. Parents to NOT have the
backups for using that standard, no judge, no jury, no police training
in the use of deadly force, or force.
If it is "useless" to you, then don't use it! Let's everyone else decide
for themselves if it useful nor not.
No, point out to me what is weasely, or deceptive, or avoiding, or in
any way dishonest in my paragraph.
You have done this for years when you are cornered.
Funny! It is you with your back to the walls! ;-)
Parents cannot use "reasonable standards" as a measure of where the
line is in stopping before injury using CP.
If so you would have no difficulty in pointing that stoping place
scientifically. Reasonable standards isn't a measure, it is a part of
a much more complex group problem solving practice.
You have done it again. ... your are completely refuted and all you
can do is accuse the opponent of being dishonest.
Isn't it you who accused me of lying??? Look at the mirror lately? ;-)
You done this to Chris when you were cornered, you've done it LaVonne,
you've done it to Alborn, and in these past days you have exposed
yourself publically again and again.
LOL! I am still here. Where are they? ;-)
....is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by
choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand,
with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about
I'm sorry if I was unclear.
No. You just tried to weasel! ;-)
If you think so you can show then where I have done so. All those
resources for decision making by the use of "reasonable standards" are
not available to the parent before they have erred and end up in the
hands of the police, CPS, and the courts.
Really! They all kept it in secret??? Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! ;-)
Hence, little boy, it is YOU that is trying, and sadly failing, to
I am a mirror. You are seeing yourself in it!
I cannot solve complex problems without the time and resources, often
computational, without assistance. If I have the time, I can do it,
but the child is gone...grown up, or escaped the punishment I had in
mind, or so far chronologically past the event the punishment would be
abusive on that alone. If I have all the resources for computing in
place, in this instance juries, judge, police, then THEY will take the
"reasonable standards" fails on practicality, just as your "make up
your own mind" does. It fails to fit the need of the questioning
So we can't make up our own mind??? Logic and the anti-spanking
Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?
You should take your own advice!
What a pompous ass.
Looking at the mirror again, Kane? ;-)
I've have brought you by the scruff of the neck numerous times in this
discussion, from your scampering up trees, racing down byways, bolting
out your constructed escape hatches, simply to see you try yet another
This statement wasn't advice...read it. It's a request I'll repeat for
the terminally cowardly little thug:
Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane? Shame on you! ;-)
Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?
Answer the question, or admit you can't.
Already have - "reasonable standard"!
I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their
And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on
"life" or "live"? You going to the seventh plant!
You are going to Grammar Nanny me now? The most ancient ploy in
Usenet...and you'd USE it that boldy instead of answering The
Question. You are more stuck that even I thought you were.
You used it on me! At least I have the excuse of using a foreign
language. What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? ;-)
The parents, you ponderous pile of ****ant puke, have to live with
their decision after seeing you have blithely fought against every
alternative and all counter arguments to spanking. They will be
strongly influenced to spank.
Really? Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0
You really are stupid!
You are not telling the to make up their own mind. You are simply
saying "I won't be responsible."
Of course I am not responsible. They did make up their own mind!
Are you always this stupid???
And, by your arguments against alternatives to CP, including the one
of simply not doing it, you have set yourself up as pro-spank.
When I see you mount arguments as vociferously against Dobson,
Lazelere, Baumrind and other apologists and supporters of spanking,
including those people that come here that adocate it, or apologize
for it, I'll consider you approaching ethical behavior.
LOL! Funny that you would be talking about ethics! ;-)
The difference between us is that you lack the morals and
to then ask them to set guidelines.
What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)
For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already
the child and the consequences of doing so.
For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.
I asked you where the precise guidelines are, The Question, and you
ask what I am talking about, then repeat the what when I tell what I
am talking about.
And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard.
Your tail is about to disappear.
Dogs have tail, Kane9! ;-)
The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or
abuse except by their EFFECTS. Exactly! How else?
So if you beat someone until something breaks all the efforts before
that break was spanking?
LOL! Do you use the "reasonable" standard? ;-)
It's getting rather obvious that you are cornered like the weasel you
are and are throwing out anything that you think will slow down the
What is injury to one child is little to another. What might take
moments to do in fit of anger by a parent may be also done by less
vigoros and sudden CP over a longer time. The damage to the mind is
difficult to assess at all.
Shall parents spank then setting aside these dangers?.
They all have a brain and know how to think, don't they?
If you have found otherwise I'd be most pleased to be advised. I
have done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The
Question in any statute or policy I've uncovered. Post one and
we will discuss. If you are that stupid then please don't that
others are too. :-)
Nonsense. I have already told you that none apply. If you wish to find
one that does...go and get it yourself.
Post it, we'll discuss it in light of its usefulness to a parent about
There you go, again. You are the one searching for the answer, not I!
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)
Of if you do not wish to answer The Question, speak right up and stop
Already have - reasonable standard!
All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes,
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.
Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between
force" and "excessive force".
And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot
to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force"
be hired and retained as a LEO.
Really??? Show me!
No, you show us what "reasonable" means. You used it. To just keep
parroting yourself and saying it over is not a "standard" that parents
The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it!
If you do not know what reasonable means in terms of a useful measure
that would give I high probability of a parent not hurting their child
should they spank, then you cannot defend the "make up your own mind"
statement you offer.
So you will make up their mind for them? Logic and the anti-spanking
They do not have the information to do that and meet the criteria they
claim they wish when they come to this ng.
So you are speaking for "them"?
They say they do not hurt their children and they do not want, but
millions do hurt their children.
ALL because they don't know the difference between spankinng and
beating??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... ;-)
Each, of course, has proven THEY did not use a reasonable standard,
but had you asked them before they spanked they would and do defend
that they know the child best and are reasonable and loving parents.
LOL! And your proof is?
I understand they also face some of the same consequential
that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect,
or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child
likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities,
from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and
demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and
imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.
LOL! Show me where a parent can shoot a child and defend it as
A diversion. I did not defend the use of the standard for parenting.
YOU did. My point, clearly, is the risk to the user, not the risk to
the child in my example.
Weaseling, Kane! ;-)
You continue to dodge. You continue to not answer The Question by
arguing the elements of your attempted answer, and bring up irrelevant
or even challenges that are against your own claim.
No matter which end of the spectrum you come from, the obvious example
you tried to divert with, shooting the child, to not CP at all,
somewhere along that line lies the claim of spanking parents, and your
willingness to let them "make up their own mind" wher eit will not be
dangerous...or so they claim... and you defend.
And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the 1% extreme cases!
Where is that area? Where does it change to risk of harm sufficient
for a reasonable person to decide to go or no go.
Ask a "reasonable person"! Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency!
one's and zeros, Doan. If you could even come close to the defining
line I'd be more than satisfied.
All you need is to consider the variables. Compute some force, speed,
etc. Calculate the psychology of the child, and viola, you are home
free with an answer that could make your rich and famous.
LOL! Are we talking with a reasonable person here?
Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own
mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?
And they can get away with it???
They get caught every time???????????????
So what is the problem?
Of course they can. I doubt that every spanker that becomes a beater
gets caught and suffers the legal consequences, and some even kill
their children, and don't get caught. Some get caught and it can't be
proven they were competent to decide on punishment modes, and that's
the saddest of all.
All because they don't know the difference between a spankinng an a
beating??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS...
Without asking, with little or no ability to assess the capacity
emotionally, developmently, psychologically, you say, "let them make
up their own mind."
So you will make up their mind for them????
I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers,
they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most
the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly
legal and have been for some time in all but one state.
And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly
protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm
no in parental disciplining.
Same with the police use of "reasonable force".
The police are trained. Do a google. It's a massive industry, traing
police in the use of reasonable force. And still THEY kill people they
rightly shouldn't have. The line is so frought with variables that it
is a constant problem for public safety and the officers that work to
perserve that safety.
So let ban it. We don't want to risk public safety, do we? ;-)
Now if you want to take on The Question for the police, you just ring
up the LAPD and let us know their response.
Isn't this a double standard, Kane? I already know the "reasonable
standard". You don't! You should be the one that go looking for it!
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! ;-)
And remember, reasonable for them has a very very bad result when they
move into that margin of error problem.
Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! ;-)
I contend that is very much the problem for parents, and you create
more for them by blithely spouting crap, and excusing yourself with a
And what percentage of
parents misuse force, Kane? 1%, 5%, 10%???
I'm not interested in answering demographic inqueries while adressing
a problem not related. If, when you have answered The Question you
wish to bring it up again, please do. It deserves and examination of
some proabably 400k cases per year to ask exactl that question. I do
know that some states have the data at hand and publish it
yearly...but that is NOT relevant to The Question.
It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing
the difference from a beating. And even according to the data you
privided, it is not "half" - YOU LIED! Q.E.D. ;-)
The parent, a single parent coming to this ng, wants to know about HIS
or HER particular decision making, not our sometimes grandeous
exploration of the big picture.
What parent??? The only one I see asking that question is you!
The Question, Doan. Just the little Question.
Reasonable standard, Kane! Are you so stupid!
So tell us, Doan...if everyone else in the world you keep bringing
cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their
and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to
not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that
Because most parents have common sense!
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 800K a year do not, apparently..abuse
and neglect. Claims that another's common sense gives you the moral
right to tell them to go ahead and decide on their own whether or not
to risk injury and harm, even death, to their child has a hollow ring
SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM? How about the other 99%+ that
don't abuse their kids???
And they have proven through
out history that they did a good job!
That is your opinion not adequately born out by the facts. History
shows we do not do well by each other or our home. And this isn't a
large picture question. It is a matter for each parent, regardless of
capacity or education that comes to this ng and watches us engage the
spanking - non-spanking question.
Who are these phantom parents, Kane? Most of these abusers are drugged
up to care! You are being ridiculous, Kane!
Are you suggesting they must
get a license before they can have kids???
Why would you go there? It does not answer The Question, or even begin
Already answer the question - reasonable standard!
On the other hand, is there a law in your area that requires a dog
license? Do you have to have a permit to build a house? What would be
extraordinary about asking people to show some level of knowledge and
competence before having children?
Children are not dogs nor houses! You seem to be suggesting that
it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded. Can they have children
We do it in an informal way, some backed by formal institutions.
Marraige and age limits on it. Involving others in the processes
surrounding child birth, and rearing. Among humans it is common to
have grandparental interferrence...really it amounts to oversite.
We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem!
You are appealing to emotions praying that someone will come to your
rescue with a loud indignant outcry, aren't you.
LOL! I am very capable of taking care of myself.
But I don't think it's coming...at least not from any but the
NO! Not from you! ;-)
More than one family has wished the younger generation had gotten some
parenting skills before having children. When school budgets were
better many highschools did just that...have programs in family living
skills..which included child care methods including discipline...want
to bet they didn't teach spanking? All you have to do is call and find
Going off a tagent again, Kane??? ;-)
Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return
well. In fact very badly all in all.
Who are they?
Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on
There hundreds of book on parenting the last time I was at a
Are you suggesting that most parents are stupid?
Yes. Some are not only stupid, that is of low intelligence...and
that's a fact jack, not a slam on parent...humans do not all come wiht
your superior intellect. Some are just ignorant of their ignorance.
They don't know they don't know so they don't go to find those books.
Some are damaged by the childhoods they have. I'm not sure which
demographic posed the most threat to children, but I'd tend to bet on
the last one...the damaged by childhoods of their own.
LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see!
Fortunately for us, and for you in this debate, a great many parents
are none of the above. But we aren't concerned with those.
And you are the one to decide right, Kane? ;-)
Most of those, with little time to waste, don't come to this ng
looking for anything. The ones that do seem to fall into one of the
above categories, or the one I believe is the most dangerous of all:
And you are omniscient! You know and keep track on everyone who
frequented this newsgroup???? ;-)
We have seem here. The things they say about children and children's
motives are beyond belief. They are so far from the facts it is
sickening to look at their words and know they are going to parent a
And you are the judge right, Kane? ;-)
And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?
The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof
I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and
is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff,
legislatures spend considerable time on the problem....that parents
can simply ignore...as they so often do with your encouragement by
distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and
posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting.
So parents are so stupid that cannot be trusted to make up their own
Most people can make up their mind. That's not brain surgergy. The
problem we are addressing, though I'm feeling increasingly lonely, are
those people that can't be trusted to make them up correctly. That IS
something of a problem. But you are attempting to be inclusive again,
when it is some that are, not all.
You are pretty desperate, obviously. Are you catching your breath for
another run at The Question, or are you going to stick it out with
"reasonable standards" though you've failed to defend that as a
I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! ;-)
Or are you just shifting back and forth hoping for something else to
open up you can dive for and escape?
Thinking for yourself?
You could try hanging yourself. I'd probably give up on asking you The
Question. But as long as you are here and not babbling too much more,
I'll assume that you assume I'm not going to stop asking The Question.
And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;-
Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and
Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?
I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for
as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The
I have already looked up the statistics, Kane.
That's nice. Then why did you ask me?
To prove what a liar you are! ;-)
You are refusing to show
me the data becaue that woudld prove that you are LYING!
No, I simply haven't looked them up. I used a very loose term,
In matters of injury and death to child I start at 1 and there is no
number along the way that changes my mind about the massive label. And
Weasleingg again, Kane? ;-)
Besides, that argument would be about the reasonableness of The
Question. I think it reasonable to ask you in the light of your "let
them make up their own minds," don't you?
And you STILL aren't answering The Question, just dancing and dodging,
twirling in a fuzzy blur of ever decreasing of weasel tail up your own
If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access.
I have. IT IS FAR LESS THAN 1%!!!
Okay, that's nice. It's about time you did your own research. Are you
going to make claims or are you going astound us with the tiny little
number that represents.
Let me explain something about The Question, before you get carried
Here comes the weasel! ;-)
I did not ask it for a policy matter. Programs are not going to be
based on it (at this time). I ask it for one parent, and one parent
Pop goes the weasel! ;-)
That hypothetical parent that has come and has gone and will come
again to this ng and watch you and I. One of, if we are at all
responsible and reasonable people, or both, needs to come up with an
answer to that question they bring: "where, if I spank, should I stop
to keep from injuring my child?"
Where is this hypothetical parent?
Now I know they won't really use those words all, but it's heavily
implied in their arguments and questions, and you acknowledge that by
mentioned the large numbers of books on parenting that are available
to the smart ones.
Your percentage of far less than one is very likely far short of
reality because it's going ot have legal limits on it and it's going
to miss a great many abuses that lead to injury and death. Have you
noticed how often bodies of long dead children are showing up these
Really? How many - millions???? ;-)
I sometimes dread going for hikes in my mountains. It saddens me so to
know that they can be dumping grounds for the mistakes you may have a
moral involvement in with your dismissal of your responsibility but
your vigorous defense of CP...and don't try that **** with me or
anyone else that you don't defend it.
LOL! Really, Kane? Can we go looking for these dead bodies next time I
visit Colorado? ROTFLH! Did you get that one from the National Enquirer?
You've branded yourself over an over again a conscienceless liar on
LOL! You are funny, Kane!
So, confine yourself to answering The Question, with the understanding
that I'll only go down your little byroads when it serves my purpose,
as it just did.
And I'll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! ;-)
So, hip boy, want to contribute the numbers to humanity, or just hold
them as a ploy for avoidance?
Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse
after injuring their child, but I don't think anyone here would,
your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so.
Excuse are easy to make, Kane!
You teach me that every day I'm here.
You are being stupid again! ;-)
They've never been easy for me. I forget sometimes how easy they are
for others. Chalk it off to chronic naivete'.
You are stupid to believe their veracity,
No, I'm not stupid. That should be obvious by my bringing them up as a
factor in The Question question. They are a factor in the need for a
standard so they have its vagueness as an excuse. Didn't you get that
from what I said?
What excuse do they use to justify neglecting their children?
Each other. Poverty, though they seem to have enough for a quarter bag
a day. Domestic violence (one of the few I'll buy into...beaten
adults, like beaten children....tend to lose the power of self
determination..and it's very read...adults become childlike), Their
mother-in-law, their "SO"s mother, their "SO"s father - brother -
sister - Teddy bear. It can get pretty pathetic.
And I thought it was becasue of me! ;-)
Often the truth is pretty ordinary. Many hurt their children out of
shear inability to parent. Just don't have the will to do it. But hey
have to pretend because of societal pressure. Very sad indeed. For
all, and mostly for the children.
Some are so sick they feed off their children emotionally and these
are the ones that scream their love the loudest when their children
are taken....denying they raped them, sold them for drugs, and made
this child's life hell with unpredictability.
And I thought it because they don't know the difference between a
spanking and beating! ;-)
Enjoying the byway? I know I am.
Every minute so far. ;-)
That is what make up most of the child-abuse cases, Kane!
Neglegence? Yes I know. It runs around half or a little under in most
states. The reason it appears to be more is that the abuse cases
almost always have a neglect element. It's the overlap that drives the
number on neglect up. So about oh say a half are both neglect and
abuse and about a third or so are abuse alone. Sometimes less in some
I don't think I've seen national numbers in many months. It's not
something that holds my interest so I lose track.
Neglect, the last time I remember seems to have a higher incidence of
fatality. Seems logical. Is that what you found?
Do you always just spout a number and fail to put up the source?
Ha! Ha! Ha! That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child
It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental
processing...to excuse bad behavior.
In other words, the spanked (90+%) of the population, has learned
lie very well to protect themselves from the consequences of their
The spanked LIE? ALL of THEM??? And the "never-spanked" like you
lie, right? ;-)
I have a surprise for you. Everyone lies.
HA! HA! HA! And you accused me??? ;-)
Those that say they don't...wellllll, let's just let you out on that
one, okay. There's only one hair left showing now.
I didn't know you are bald! ;-)
You are a prime example.
LOL! Do you lie? ;-)
Yes. Absolutely. I did this evening. I told my wife that I really
liked to back off an give her daughers time with her on her birthday,
but the truth was I wanted to be with her more...lucky me, that live
in their own homes, and she and I in ours.
So you want me to believe you - a liar???? ;-)
I lied to my aging mother because she is becoming confused...at 90
that's not uncommon. She said she could leave and get an apartment of
her own and do just fine, and I said, "Of course you can mom." She
can't of course. But she lived so independently all her life I don't
want right now, remotely, to engage her in a discussion of plaining
for her best interests.
False analogy! ;-)
Shall I have her call you for a cheery "make up your own mind"?
If you want. Shall I make up her mind then? ;-)
Did yah tell the cop, when she stopped you, because you knew damn
well, "Yes, Officer, 88 mph..that's it, or maybe 89"?
Sure! I am not stupid! After all, I was spanked! What's your
Sure you do Doan.
Here in this ng though Doan, you greatly surpass the social acceptable
norms of untruths for social grease. Here you expand the bounds of
veracity as few have attained before.
But you said we all LIE! That is normal according to you, a
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)
And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at
before and after 1979?
If you wish to go down that road please do, but know at the end of
long evasive trail, I will be waiting here with The Question.
You can't handle the truth! :-)
Odd, it's not only right here I posted some URLs to it just a day ago.
Or maybe two...woudn't want to lie... R R R R
And one them disproved your claim. ;-)
It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails
incidence of abuse.
Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning
I cannot say, and neither can you, but I can tell you that
there was huge increase in the reporting of child abuse....and
services rendered to child and family. The purpose was not to
the reporting of child abuse, but the incidence of it in the
Show me the data!
I posted the arguments recently. The assumption that child abuse rates
when up has been meet by the truth that child abuse REPORTING rates
went up. Because child abuse in the form of beatings and "spankings"
was a norm...an extreme norm, beyond even our own, it wasn't reported
and didn't have to be under the law.
Nope! It didn't say that!
Now it does.
It isn't rocket science, Doan, nor is it a bolt hole for you to avoid
The Question. Everyone knows you're dancing with these questions.
Assertion without proof again, Kane!
Enjoy. I am.
And what are we seeing?
Dr. Durant explains it well:
Why don't you post the actual study instead of a "FILTERED" version
from a anti-spanking site, Kane? You do know how to think for
I don't have access to the study. If you do would you like to post it?
Someone already have. Look it up in google!
Is there something wrong with the statements of Dr. Durant you wish to
Didn't you the one by Larzelere??? It's like a rebuttal to the claim
How will they effect the topic, The Question?
Did I brought up Durrant????
You brought it up unbidden...or wish to use something I said to
quickly expand into a cloud of smoke for yourself. Do you think you
are clever? Are you aware that people reading, can think and see what
you are attempting?
And I thought they can't "make up their mind"? ;-)
If you are having trouble noticeing, I'll help. The see you haven't
answered The Question.
Reasonable standard! ;-)
"Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse
The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily
on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case
reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since
1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the
issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to
rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied
shifts in public awareness. "
Then for a lesson in "doublethink" about as good as I've run across
my lifetime, even better than your own, try reading this:
Are you this devious? Where did it say that "reporting rates" is the
cause of the increase?
IT doesn't. That's why I labelled it doublethink. There is refusal,
not unlike your own, to connect to real world conditions. It's common
in the anti spank crowd. And they project it on everyone around them
much to our dismay. I see children with deep injuries, I hear the
excuses of of the parents who were "spanking," then I see you say,
"let them make up their own mind" and you appear out of touch with
Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their children;
and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking!
Yet the insane denial goes on, and you a big pusher of it.
AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR!
What would be devious about calling the citation source guilty of
If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within
burried your first source!
"Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal
(hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas
child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item
showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later
American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey
that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to
That fits in very nicely with the situation Dr. Durant claimed. We
have been reporting child abuse, for decaded longer than Sweden. When
they started up reporting it more...it follows the rate would
increase. That it surpasses ours goes to the very issue of them being,
before the law, extremely harsh with their children.
That of course isn't going to change overnight either.
But you said spanking is down! Using your logic, they must be lying
about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL!
The arguement is very strange indeed if it's meant to refute the
concept of non-spanking.
Exactly! You can't have it both way!
A complete denial of the fact that reporting something isn't the
of that thing. And later, the passive voice reporting that death
for children, always low in Sweden, have not changed..in other
the claim that not spanking was going to be bad for Sweden didn't
Are you reading the same thing that I am reading?
Yes. The existing child abuse in Sweden was not being reported. Note,
death rates stayed the same. Why didn't they go up if the raising rate
of reported abuse went up? Because there was no increase in abuse,
just the reporting of it.
Because not all abuses causes death! That was the same argument you used
when you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime!
It's not rocket science, Doan.
Of course not!
"Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative
comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the
the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was
higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates
1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original
were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a
temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in
disciplining children without the use of spanking."
I didn't see you response to this!
All they got was
more attention to the already severe problem with
UNREPORTED child abuse. Talk with older swedes about parenting
of the past. They were an equal too if not the surpassers of the
Speculation again, Kane!
They seem to agree with me in Europe. A couple of spanking defenders
don't. I don't let their extreme thinking errors remove the realworld
So you went to Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane?
If I'm counting pebbles in the stream in a perfunctory manner, with a
very weak mandate to count because the pebbles have always been there,
the number per foot count is going to be very low....if I suddenly get
orders to count ever people per running foot there is going to be a
whole lot higher rate of pebbles per foot in my tally.
So outlawing pebbles will reduce it? Logic and the anti-spanking
Real world, Doan, not the world you fabricate as an excuse for your
You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! ;-)
How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."
You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT???
That was MY point, Doan. Regressive fallacy number 4.032. Don't you
ever improve your ploy repertoire. You are so easy to spot.
My point was that parents lie about their "spanking" and call it
when it is in fact abusive and damaging to the child. Do you think
that at any point in time from the birth of their child to the
they were nailed by CPS they told anyone the truth about their
And they will tell you the truth if you banned spanking?
No. Why would they. The point of banning spanking isn't to get more
confessions, is it?
But those who are spanking, and or abusing are going to come under
scrutiny much more if after the law passes there is a requirement to
improve the counting methods..precisely what happened in Sweden.
But that's 1979! This is 2003! A whole generation has been brought
up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support
structure to make it work. Why no reduction in child abuse rate???
You don't study these things objectively, Doan. It's pretty obvious
you for them trying to find things that will support your theory,
backwards science as it were, that makes you cherry pick, just like in
bad science. Be objective, read everything, hold it up against what
goes on in the real world.
I didn't fudge the data, Durrant did! Are you accusing her of not
Pre law, poor collecting of abuse data. Post law, big time pressure
and a good response, to more diligent counting.
Where is the proof?
Low number before, high numbers after. ...honest, not rocket science.
And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)
the "he fell" excuse? Have you heard that?
My info is all second hand. I have heard the same for many years
though. I read court transcripts, second hand in my mind. I read
studies, third hand or more hand. It adds up.
LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge!
And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?
I don't recall saying that, but I suspect the incidence of child
abuse, were the use of CP outlawed, would result over time as
learned other methods of parenting....OR LOST THEIR children to
that do use non pain parenting, YES, the that kind of abuse would
Any evidence of that in, not just Sweden, but any of the other
that banned spanking??? Come on, Kane. Here is your chance to prove
your assertion. Here is your chance to convince me and others!
Why do you dance and shout and everything have to be a school boy dare
with you Doan. Are you that frightened?
Just having fun! ;-)
I haven't made a claim that anti spanking laws made abuse rates go
down. I said I suspect. I'm realistic. I know, right up close from
treating spanking victims, now insidious and life long such
experiences can be. Those boys I worked with will always be high risk
for abusing their own children. We gave them every tool for self
control and an appreciation for themselves we could, and we worked
diligently on empathy building for them, but they were spanked. That
doesn't just go away.
Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-)
It could be a generation or two to see the significant changes in
populations that outlaw spanking. Abuse is intergenerational even if
one can stop it entirely. It's like substance abuse. A family can be
clean for generations, but the family interactions can still be based
on those learned generations ago to support the boozer or druggie and
THOSE will make the family look like it has abuse dynamics...and of
course, the risk is high they will, or they will substitute other
unpleasant counterproductive behaviors ...manipulative, low trust for
each other, scapegoating...you know the kinds of things you do. so
So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects???
Same with spanking. Or abuse or neglect.
Sound like weasels!
Using the absolute, "stop" of course, is your silly attempt to one
action fiddle the language.
I din't say it in the absolute!
You didn't "mean" it in the absolute? Okay.
However I notice that that is entirely unconnected to our thread of
debate, the subject is not in it.
Then why did you brought it up????
I don't think you can support your implication that I WANT to ban
spanking. I consider it a second best solution to the voluntary
reduction by parents who will stop listening to their fear filled
childhood denial, and to you and your encouragement to spank.
The best way is to prove to them that the non-cp alternatives are
effective and better.
No, actually it isn't. One cannot convince a spanker or those from a
spanking background using "facts." The don't respond to "facts," and
will squirm in great spasm of panic to avoid facts.
LOL! So you will force them????
What might give them a chance to make a more balanced decision is to
admit that non-spanking begins with the premise, and it's not
refutable...there is not risk of injury or death to the child by not
From there one goes to what works better. They aren't going to just
try it. That went by the wayside long ago, as a possibility.
90% of the people have been spanked. They have defenses in place to
keep it. Long convulted arguments such as you indulge in are dead on
to keep them spanking or convince them to start. YOU aren't neurtral
and I'm not lying.
I encourage parents to make up their own
YOU say it. You do not encourage it or you would work to maintain a
neutral objective assessment of both sides. You WORK at it. You don't
even consider the other side. You never attack the premises of the
spanking advocates, or question their arguments. They have NO evidence
that long term use of CP is harmless...and you won't admit it.
It's so obvious that it makes you, and those like you an instant fool
to anyone that doesn't immediately take shelter for their childish
fear of loss of control and power in relationship (a gift from
childhood) and your endless babble convinces them long before you say,
"make up your own minds."
You are lying when you said I encourage parents to spank!
Do you deny that you fail to attack prospank arguments with the vigor
you attack anti spank arguments? Do you deny that you fail to
recognise that spanking has risks outside most parents capacity to
gauge in all instances with all children?
You have no proof! You can't convince people if you don't have proof!
Do you deny that you run when confronted with anecdotal evidence but
will present it yourself in defense of spanking as a choice?
Do you deny that you have claimed that using non cp has risks, as you
claim shows in studies, but fail to do the same for using CP?
LOL! Have you stopped beating you wife yet? ;-)
But you shouldn't? ;-)
I point to the reasons. I don't just declare.
You point to what reasons? Reasons to make up their own mind without
adequate knowledge of the injury issues in CP?
They have every reason to make up their own mind! You have the burden
to prove to them your claim!
Have YOU ever cited anyone to Riak's page? You have cited people to
pro spank pages.
Why should I? I don't believe in them!
When I say you are a liar, I am not saying you don't say what you
say...you do say "let them make up their own minds." But, you are a
liar when you claim that you give them the equal amount of information
from both side so the issue.
LOL! They don't see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! ;-)
Even they know you aren't neutral.
And you are???
On the other hand I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, and
fastest progress, just as we saw with women's suffrage and the
right movement, may well lie with a change in the law. It seems to
the case in the countries that have outlawed CP.
I am saddened, but not ashamed that I could be wrong. I wish it
otherwise, and loving parents didn't themselves have to be
to awareness...but if that's what it takes I'll be able to take a
break and end my reasoned appeals to conscience.
Conscience, and its development, often being the first casualty of
This is one of the self admitted "stupid" things I do. I trust
to a far greater degree than they warrant by the evidence of their
SO YOU DON'T TRUST PARENTS???
What a silly ass thing to say. And a school boy yell too.
You are lying when you ask such obviously accusatory rhetorical
questions. Your loss of your self in this is exposure of yourself.
Are their parents that injure and kill their children with
I trust parents to be fallible humans and have never said otherwise.
Some will err. In an effort to offer them a chance to look at another
way with far less risk...near zero....and replace it with not just the
ceasing of hitting, but with the chance to learn more effective
ways...I trust them to do well when they try it.
And you will make up their mind for them???
Nearly all do, except those who stay locked into their pain and
control punishment model thinking and try to apply non-punitive
Ah! The enlightenned ones! ;-)
What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.
And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry,
see the logic, Kane.
No, I was not discussing that. Are you using regression or
logical fallacies today? I am explaining why I know that parents,
answer to YOUR diverting question, do NOT know how to limit
in many instances.
You are using a small number of parents who abused their kids and
generalize that to the population at large. That is a fallacy!
For what? The Question? No, in fact I've carefully confined The
Question to what one parent wants to know. You are again, just as I
accuse you of above, trying to expand the arguement to beyond where I
I only response to what you brought up!
Where did I say The Question had to address gross demographic
concerns. It might do that, but at this time I don't care. I am one
theoretical parent waiting for this babbling wandering idiot to get
over thousands of lines of diversion and answer The Question as it was
asked, or get off the pot and admit he cannot.
And the answer have been given!
Does it ever occur to you their may be another answer this problem of
risk...that we simply show the one who is here to ask ALL the
altrnatives in a simple fashion with out all these diversions you
trough in the instant the question is asked by them announcing their
And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better.
Can you prove it?
You may be too short, in morals, metaphorically speaking, to see
the thickets along your diverted argument, but I am not. We are
talking about The Question.
Oops! Resorting to ad-hom again.
Ooops! Using it to avoid The Question.
The question has been answered!
Do you look at yourself in the mirror
Do you really think my use of an ad hom is sufficient excuse,
ethically, to NOT continue to address the question?
No! Your ad-hom just shows your true character!
Would you answer it if I asked without ad hom?
I already have - EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? ;-)
No, it's obvious by now you wouldn't because I have, repeatedly and
you still dance.
Nope! You just can't handle the truth! ;-)
This in the face of and despite the fact that a million
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child
and I presume mentally.
Cite your source, Kane.
Why would you make such a demand?
Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!
Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about
What number have you provided to prove your claim that crime is down
because we are spanking less???
Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number..
I have - the FBI data. Your defense of your lie is another lie - it's
the computer! :-)
.so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about The
I was not discussing numbers. YOU were. I enaged in it with you. I no
longer wish to. I am not in the business of defending my numbers. Some
other time perhaps and you may naw race about and claim I ran from
debate...but remember, google is watching and I'm quite comfortable
with quoting the archives when some pennyante little coward starts
You want to run from the numbers you claimed now?
YOU have been running from ME and that question was simply one in a
long line of attempts to avoid The Question.
This document is now only one quarter of its orginal length, even with
our current posting. I am taking out the rest on the grounds you have
answered the question here or in the rest of the document.
You have dodged, weaved, changed the subject, and all to avoid the
You lie directly. You lie by omission. You lie by artifice.
And you admitted to lying! ;-)
Answer the question as asked. All other questions you have brought up
I will consider at another time and place at my pleasure.
Run, Kane8! Run! ;-)
You are of of course free to do the same, even with this, The
But if you leave, you leave the field before you've done with The
I declare I have run, for now,
from debating all the misleading,
dodging, bull**** you have heaved up (much of which has been debated
before with you to no end by me and others). Now show your mettle.
Answer The Question.
The dog ran with tails between his legs! ;-)