To spank or not to spank?

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

And it does not improve grades.

Education Department statistics show that
African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
of other races.

And studies after studies
Citations, please. Plural.

http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/Bei...d%20Parent.htm

"What must be said about spanking is that it exists in cultural contexts.
For example, scientific studies show that many White middle and upper
class children who receive physical punishment regularly become aggressive
as adolescents and as adults.

What studies, Doan?

The data for Black children, regardless of
economic background, suggests the opposite- that not using physical
punishment is associated with behavior problems.

"Suggests?"

Is that an X leads to Y, "causal" claim?

Further, some suggests
that White middle class physical discipline suggests an out-of control
authoritarian home while the lack of physical discipline among African
American parents implies neglectful parenting (see Deater-Deckard, Bates,
Dodge, & Pettit, 1996). Clearly culture is an important factor in how
physical discipline is understood.

Yes it is. And I cited a study that counters this one.

The presence of hedge words prevails in this commentary. "implies?"
"suggests?"

I think in your prior post you mentioned, "opinion. opinion?"

An important factor in the debate on different forms of punishment is the
perception that Black children have regarding their punishment. When
parents are viewed as caring and not simply angry, children tend to
internalize the message that there is a consequence, good and bad, for
their behaviors. This is where showing warmth while being controlling is
absolutely necessary. Regardless, spanking is a decision that parents
must make individually. The most important factor is balancing warmth and
firmness."

That is certainly opinion, and very much expressing the rationalization
that spanking doesn't result in misbehavior.

The study I pointed to said flat out, that it did, across three racial
demographics, Hispanic, caucasion, and African American.


As to your citation, you chose, not a scientific journal, or even a
scientific periodical, but an obviously biased source that strongly
support CP including from a religious perspective.

http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/200...cles.php?id=29

Here are a few comments that make this clear. One a bald statement that
is of course false on it's face but does clearly express the publisher's
bias:

"Physical Punishment

Disciplining children requires punishment."
[[[ The erroneous assumption that "discipline IS punishment." ]]]

In addition they cite Deater-Deckard, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1996, as
support for the author's argument they make concerning how discipline
equates with good parenting.

And if you check the abstract of their research you will see they make
no such definitive affirmation this article you posted attempts:

http://www.indiana.edu/~batessdl/cdp_abstracts.html#961

"Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1996).
Physical discipline among African-American and European-American
mothers: Links to children's externalizing behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 1065-1072.

The aim of this study was to test whether the relation between physical
discipline and child aggression was moderated by ethnic-group status. A
sample of 466 European American and 100 African American children from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels were followed from kindergarten
through 3rd grade. Mothers reported their use of physical discipline in
interviews and questionnaires, and mothers, teachers, and peers rated
children's externalizing problems annually. The interaction between
ethnic status and discipline was significant for teacher- and peer-rated
externalizing scores; physical discipline was associated with higher
externalizing scores, but only among European American children. These
findings provide evidence that the link between physical punishment and
child aggression may be culturally specific. "

In fact, what it says clearly is "may be" specific to culture. They did
not establish that it was or the abstract would say so.

The research I provided says specifically that regardless of culture all
spanked children where a loving supportive environment was not present
did in fact experience increases in misbehavior. NO claim was made, by
the way, that the presence of support changed that in any way.

This is how it was stated in the study I first cited:

"Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
problem behavior. Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
but not in the context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern
held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan.

Kane


Doan

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

He did not. I posted a report from researchers that when the source was
accessed, showed that the source he would point to, had lied.

Blatantly.

My source said that in fact misbehavior rose for all three groups of
children, while his lied and said not for Black children.

He later posts "proof" from an article, rather than from the source,
where the article fails to not the researchers used "may be" linked to
cultural issues.

That's a big hedge.

Doan claims his "Black children don't" based on "And studies after studies."

You see him citing any?

One article from a source so obviously biased they start with the need
for religious sanctions for CP, and flatly state that "discipline" means
punishment?

Discipline means "to teach."

Punishment means to hurt.

Doan has proved nothing but that he's poor propagandist that makes
claims he refuses to support, and when asked questions in challenge of
his claims, simply changes the subject...usually to some ad hom question.

I point out that The Question of The Line between safe CP and abuse is
unknowable...and it is...and he, rather than try to support his claim
that it IS, asks me if I knew the line with my own children.

YOU may not wish to face the truth of such evasion, but I doubt anyone
else does.

What I do or do not do or know is irrelevant to the argument that The
Line is unknowable, and precisely the problem with people chosing to hit
their children and minimize what it is and so easily becomes.

The question of what is acceptable CP has never been resolved.

Even legally you cannot find a single law that defines with any
reasonable chance of not injuring a child, precisely the conditions that
constitute 'legal physical discipline.'

The best the law can do is discuss the unwanted outcomes. IN other
words, after the line is passed and the child injured, then they'll tell
you if you broke the law or not.

This should, were you consistent, enrage you and cause you to have one
of your usual ****fits about violations of civil rights, but because
it's a matter where YOU come down on the side of CP, you are perfectly
happy the law is as sloppy as it is.

Kane

This is how it was stated in the study I first cited:

"Maternal emotional support moderated the link between spanking and
problem behavior. Spanking was associated with an increase in behavior
problems over time in the context of low levels of emotional support,
but not in the context of high levels of emotional support. This pattern
held for all 3 racial-ethnic groups."

The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan.

Kane

"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support." YOU
ARE STUPID!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

"The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
according to him. ;-)

Show where it is
'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.

Seen anyone arrested and charged for being a slave yet, Doan.

That's what I claimed.

Thus you are memory impaired, from too much childhood spanking, likely,
or you are lying.

Which goes to Greg's claim that you proved me wrong being a crock.

You cited a bias loaded rag, I cited a scientific study.

When the rag cited to support their claim and I checked the source it
turns out the issue of culture was described by the researchers as "may be."

In other words, they are not going to claim they have conclusively shown.

Doan

Thus Greg's claim "Doan, You proved him wrong," is false, thus making
his next comment that "he won't admit it," patently false on logic.

I am not going to admit to being wrong, when I am not.

You were.

And you failed to defend the other source that lied by omission that I
pointed out to you...pro-spankers that deliberately falsely citing a
source that said something entirely different than claimed.

The claim left out the parent that said the misbehavior in fact was seen
in the children from all three cultures.

That would not be MY mistake, Doan, but yours for not admitting the
fact, and claiming you have all the studies that prove your claim, but
will not cite them. Or provide links to them.

I see why you two invited and enjoy the presence of Ken here.

A two legged stool needs another leg to keep from over.

Kane

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

"The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
according to him. ;-)

Show where it is
'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.

You claimed that it is LEGAL, the burden of proof is on you. Show me
statue in a state, or anywhere for that matter, where it said it is
LEGAL to be a slave. I cannot prove a negative, Kane. You made
the affirmative claim. Prove it!

Doan

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

Doan cited a biased prospanking source that cited research from the
following group. They did not clearly represent the actual conclusions
of the researchers.

Here is yet another related study of theirs.

* Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S.
(1998). Multiple-risk factors in the development of externalizing
behavior problems: Group and individual differences. Development and
Psychopathology, 10, 469-493.

The aim of this study was to test whether individual risk factors
as well as the number of risk factors (cumulative risk) predicted
children's externalizing behaviors over middle childhood. A sample of
466 European American and 100 African American boys and girls from a
broad range of socioeconomic levels was followed from age 5 to 10 years.
Twenty risk variables from four domains (child, sociocultural,
parenting, and peer-related) were measured using in-home interviews at
the beginning of the study, and annual assessments of externalizing
behaviors were conducted. Consistent with past research, individual
differences in externalizing behavior problems were stable over time and
were related to individual risk factors as well as the number of risk
factors present. Particular risks accounted for 36% to 45% of the
variance, and the number of risks present (cumulative risk status)
accounted for 19% to 32% of the variance, in externalizing outcomes.
Cumulative risk was related to subsequent externalizing even after
initial levels of externalizing had been statistically controlled. All
four domains of risk variables made significant unique contributions to
this statistical prediction, and there were multiple clusters of risks
that led to similar outcomes. There was also evidence that this
prediction was moderated by ethnic group status, most of the prediction
of externalizing being found for European American children. However,
this moderation effect varied depending on the predictor and outcome
variables included in the model.

In other words, just as they said about their earlier research, "may be."

In this case, outcomes for race were changable based on the OTHER
variables.

No really connection that could stand on its own, concerning better or
worse outcomes for Black children was established.

The study I cited earlier from another more recent source of research
states clearly that NO such cultural differences effect outcomes. All
children spanked present with more misbehavior as a result.

But then you don't read anything, or when you do, like Doan, you either
don't see what is there, and lie, or do see what is there and...of
course...still lie.

Kane


Kane said:
"The pattern held, high or low emotional support, for all 3, Doan."

From your own source, Kane:
"but not in the the context of high levels of emotional support."

Now either YOU ARE STUPID and don't understand what you read or YOU ARE
A LIAR! Which is it, Kane?

Doan

Greegor wrote:
You could say that Kane is a slave to rhetoric also.

Yes, you could say it.

But would it be true?

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

AGAIN Kane goes to his "SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS"!! :-)))))))))

I didn't claim this was a scientific journal, did I? Shame on me if I
did so.

In fact you might guess I don't agree with all the sentiments of the lay
person that wrote this.

Did he claim it was scientific.

Apparently you are confuse on this as you are on the claim that there is
much research proving that children who are not spanked are at risk of
developing behaviors of "sociopathy."

But thanks for your comments.

Now the evidence you claimed, please.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...nkornottospank


Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
To spank or not to spank?

Thu Jan 25, 8:22 AM ET

The Biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child" has fallen
out of favor in recent decades.

Fifty years ago, most children were spanked. But the practice has
steadily declined over the years as parents found better ways to punish
bad behavior. Still, about half of American parents sometimes spank
their children. And, as long as it stops short of abuse, that should be
their own business.

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber thinks otherwise. She says she'll
introduce a bill next week that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone
to use corporal punishment on children three years old and under.
Penalties could include up to a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or a
requirement to attend parenting classes. If approved, California would
become the first state to explicitly ban parents from smacking their
kids. This ordinarily wouldn't merit much attention. Only a tiny
fraction of the tens of thousands of bills state legislators submit
each year even get out of committee. But the passion the topic
generates has made it a conversation piece on network television, talk
radio and elsewhere, which makes it an idea worth killing before it
spreads.

Criminalizing what most people see as a private family matter and part
of normal parenting is wrongheaded and impossible to enforce. It would
impose an absurd level of government meddling in home life.

Let's be clear. Abuse that causes injury is wrong and already illegal.
Physicians, social workers, teachers and others who suspect a child has
been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. The
proposed bill draws no distinction, however, between degrees of
physical punishment, whether 10 lashes with a whip or a quick, mild
slap to focus the attention of a child about to run into oncoming
traffic. Nor could it easily do so.

Opponents of spanking say it's a form of violence that causes
psychological harm. Defenders call it an effective method of discipline
and say there's no evidence that occasional spanking damages a child's
development. The advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics - that
spanking should be used only in selective, infrequent situations, if at
all - seems about right.

The place to ban spanking is not in the home but in public schools,
where it's still allowed in about half of states, inviting trouble.
School spanking can become overzealous; it sends children the message
that physical abuse by authority figures can be acceptable and it can
be applied inconsistently. Education Department statistics show that
African-American students are twice as likely to be spanked as students
of other races.

Abusive violence against children, whether in the home or elsewhere, is
intolerable. But so is an intrusive government that would make
criminals of parents trying to do their best to raise their kids.

Copyright © 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...nkornottospank

Doan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 27 Jan 2007, Greegor wrote:

Doan, You proved him wrong, but Kane will never admit it.

"The truth will set you free." Kane is still a slave - it is legal,
according to him. ;-)
Show where it is
'illegal" to BE a slave, Doan.

You claimed that it is LEGAL, the burden of proof is on you.

That's too easy. If it's not illegal then it is legal.

If you have no law on campus requiring you to spit in the trash
containers, then you can spit somewhere else. It's legal.

Show me
statue in a state, or anywhere for that matter, where it said it is
LEGAL to be a slave.

Anything NOT in statute is legal, Doan.

In fact recently that popped up in the news as a problem. Something very
wrong couldn't be prosecuted because there was not statute specifically
addressing it.

I cannot prove a negative, Kane.

That's right. Of course you can't. So you can't prove that being a slave
is illegal either.

You tried this before and ducked out the same way. I see you are back.

No law exists. That is my claim and my proof.

Now where is your proof that being a slave is illegal.

You made
the affirmative claim. Prove it!

No problem. If it's not in statute it's not illegal.

You do not have to make a law to establish what IS legal, only what is
not. You can, but you do not have to.

Slavery is illegal most everywhere.

Being a slave is not addressed, so it can't be illegal.

QED.

Doan

You sure are dedicated to proving your stupidity and ignorance.

But no one misses that you have now carefully departed from the debate
that opened this thread.

Coward.

R R R R R R R