Would you spank in this situation?

Kane, Being an ATHEIST, you should be specially
appreciative of the intent to DEMYSTIFY liquor.
Preaching abstinence when it comes to liquor just doesn't work.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 25 Aug 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On 24 Aug 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, dragonsgirl wrote:

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
Kane wrote
Just for fun check out the alcoholism rates for France sometime, dummy.
1. The USA is not France.
No kidding?

2. Are statistics more important than a parents right to teach as they
see fit?
You pointed out that giving wine to kids is done often in France, he pointed
out that the stats for alocoholism in France may be high.
Common practice vs Negative outcome.
Make sense?

Except that he might be lying, as usual. Why don't you look up the stats
and see if Kane is telling the truth? Here is my simple search using
google:

Alcoholism in Western Europe (Extrapolated Statistics)
Britain (United Kingdom) 3,345,910 60,270,708 for UK2
Belgium 574,481 10,348,2762
France 3,354,432 60,424,2132
Ireland 220,368 3,969,5582
Luxembourg 25,686 462,6902
Monaco 1,791 32,2702
Netherlands (Holland) 905,900 16,318,1992
United Kingdom 3,345,910 60,270,7082
Wales 161,991 2,918,0002

Wanna look up the stats for good old USA? ;-)
Why no source cite and link, Monkeyboy?

0:-

What? Can't use that "formidable research skill" of yours, Neverspanked
boy? ;-)
Your source is not my homework, boy.

Provide it or be seen again, as wearing no clothes and flinging ****.

0:-

Hihihi! **** coming out of your mouth again!
Compared to the fact YOU did not prove that the French have overcome the
drunkenness problem by "teaching" their children how to drink responsibly.

R R R R R R R

Nice try! I've never claimed that, STUPID!

Doan

I see you still won't provide a citation for your source.

What are you afraid of?

Where your citation for the French drunkenness problem, the New England
Journal of Medicine? ;-)

http://www.paris-anglo.com/dedent/de...anslive/81.php

"The need to "let loose" or partake in anti-social behavior is not as
prevalent in France, mostly in that the culture is socially less
repressed in general. It has been estimated that the average French
person over 20 years old consumes an average of 53 grams (1.87 ounces)
of pure alcohol per day, making him a participant in an impressive
percentage: the French remain the world´s heaviest consumers of alcohol
per capita after the Luxembourgeois.

Wine is still served with both lunch and dinner in many families, but
the meal is no longer considered incomplete without it (see Wine).
Alcoholism in France is responsible for 17,000 deaths a year, caused
more by cheap red wine than hard alcohol, and it is a phenomenon which
is vastly more common in rural and slum areas."

What does this have to do with "drunkenness", stupid? How many people
in the USA died each year due to alcoholism?

Wanna bet those Luxembourgers also "teach" their children "responsible
drinking" young?

Ever been to Europe, Dummy?

Hihihi! Yes!

AF

I find that other types of discipline work rather effectively, and
spanking isn't at all as useful as I had once thought it was.

I find it quite useful, but only use it when it is required. Each
individual must make their own decisions about parenting and discipline.
I don't slight anyone for making these decisions as long as they do so for
reasons that are in the best interests of their child(ren).

Hi, Ron!

I agree that it remains for each parent to decide about how they are going
to parent their children. People outside the family (including the
government) have a very limited, specifically defined say so only in cases
where the child has been maltreated or abandoned. Yet, as I suppose we both
know, it is an ongoing preoccupation among many people to force their ideas
on parenting upon others and to judge other parents based upon their own
individualized concepts of parenting. No subject gets more airing around
the gossip tables of this country.

It is altogether proper and fitting for a parent to decide themselves
whether to employ spanking as discipline. Personally, I have never spanked
any of my children. It was my decision and is just as valid as the decision
made by another parent to spank their children. I do not have the provance
to decide for another parent who he or she should discipline their children.

What I object to is someone trying to foist their opinion of what is and
is not good parenting on the parents of this country through legislation.

I share your objection and spend a good deal of my time fighting this
ill-conceived legislation. There is a concerted attempt by *some* with
social science degrees to bring the gossip table into the statehouse. The
would have government inflict their institutionalized vision of parenting
upon families.

I also object to those who have a bit of education trying to use it to
browbeat us parents into believing that their limited education is more
valid than 20,000+ years of historical experience and fact.

Well said! We have seen a history of attempts by these slightly educated
social engineers to sway legislators into empowering government intrusions
into the family decision-making.

Increasingly, the state pays therapists to draw upon flimsy, unproven
psychobabble to dictate how a parent should interact with her/his child
without meeting either. There is no "archtype" of ideal parenting found in
a textbook. Rather, the art of parenting involves family interactions based
upon parent and child knowing one another intimately and understanding what
is in their best interests. A family empowers each of its members to be who
they are as individuals.

Over the last two decades, the state is turning more and more toward our
21st century version of the witchdoctor -- the therapist -- to ordane for
all of us "appropriate" behavior and find pathology in the most innocent and
routine of day to day family interactions.

Greegor wrote:
Kane, Being an ATHEIST, you should be specially
appreciative of the intent to DEMYSTIFY liquor.

I fail to see the connection. Possibly you could explain?

Preaching abstinence when it comes to liquor just doesn't work.

I don't recall having preached abstinence. Can you explain which
statement(s) of mine were preaching and abstinence?

I did call into question the idea of "teaching children to drink
responsibly," though.

My idea of drinking responsibly is following the law...being
responsible, both as parent and child.

I took my children out for a drink when they were of legal age.

They weren't impressed, still aren't, decades later. I did no
preaching.

0:-

Doug wrote:
I find that other types of discipline work rather effectively, and
spanking isn't at all as useful as I had once thought it was.

I find it quite useful, but only use it when it is required. Each
individual must make their own decisions about parenting and discipline.
I don't slight anyone for making these decisions as long as they do so for
reasons that are in the best interests of their child(ren).

Hi, Ron!

I agree that it remains for each parent to decide about how they are going
to parent their children. People outside the family (including the
government) have a very limited, specifically defined say so only in cases
where the child has been maltreated or abandoned. Yet, as I suppose we both
know, it is an ongoing preoccupation among many people to force their ideas
on parenting upon others and to judge other parents based upon their own
individualized concepts of parenting. No subject gets more airing around
the gossip tables of this country.

It is altogether proper and fitting for a parent to decide themselves
whether to employ spanking as discipline. Personally, I have never spanked
any of my children. It was my decision and is just as valid as the decision
made by another parent to spank their children. I do not have the provance
to decide for another parent who he or she should discipline their children.

What I object to is someone trying to foist their opinion of what is and
is not good parenting on the parents of this country through legislation.

I share your objection and spend a good deal of my time fighting this
ill-conceived legislation. There is a concerted attempt by *some* with
social science degrees to bring the gossip table into the statehouse. The
would have government inflict their institutionalized vision of parenting
upon families.

I also object to those who have a bit of education trying to use it to
browbeat us parents into believing that their limited education is more
valid than 20,000+ years of historical experience and fact.

Well said! We have seen a history of attempts by these slightly educated
social engineers to sway legislators into empowering government intrusions
into the family decision-making.

Increasingly, the state pays therapists to draw upon flimsy, unproven
psychobabble to dictate how a parent should interact with her/his child
without meeting either. There is no "archtype" of ideal parenting found in
a textbook. Rather, the art of parenting involves family interactions based
upon parent and child knowing one another intimately and understanding what
is in their best interests. A family empowers each of its members to be who
they are as individuals.

Over the last two decades, the state is turning more and more toward our
21st century version of the witchdoctor -- the therapist -- to ordane for
all of us "appropriate" behavior and find pathology in the most innocent and
routine of day to day family interactions.

Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture.

The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."

Any thoughts?

0:-

Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture.

The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."

Any thoughts?

Hi, Kane,

Early onset of the use of alcohol or other drugs is correlated to major
dysfunction in adults who have identified themselves as chemically
dependent. If a child carries the set of genes that increase one's
vulnerability to alcoholism, it is hard to imagine how he or she could be
taught to drink responsibly, since the inability to do so is the very
essence of the disorder.

Nonetheless, Children are bombarded by the advertising of an industry which
sells 70% of its product to 15% of its customers. Despite governmental
pressure to deliver messages about responsible drinking, the liquor industry
is hard put to encourage drinking in small quanities. I am reminded of the
late 1970's, when sale of alcoholic drinks leveled off and became stagnant.
The industry came up with a multitude of new beverages aimed at the very
young and female (cheap pop wines, etc). An unexpected benefit of the
marketing plan was male consumers buying "light beer," a beverage designed
for the female market.

Without doubt, drinking at an early age can only increase cellular
dependence on alcohol. Alcoholism is a biological, psychological and social
disease. Introducing a child to drinking at any early age in the misguided
mission of providing a more secure social environment for experimentation
can only ignite the biological component for those who carry the genetic
coding of alcoholism. There is substantial evidence that drinking at an
early age interrupts developmental tasks of children, impacting the
psychological domain of chemical dependency disorders. Where will the
children go and how much will they drink after the home "experiment" with
alcohol is concluded?

Those who are not predisposed toward alcoholism do not need to be taught how
to drink responsibly. Those who are, are incapable of it.

Children learn about alcohol by watching how adults in their family system
use it. No amount of controlled training on responsible drinking is going
to override what the children observe their parents doing. How and why
adult members of the family use alcohol is the overriding social message
children incorporate into their construction of what drinking will do for
them.

Lessons in responsible drinking delivered by, say, an alcoholic father to
his son, is likely to produce the same results as blowing a french horn into
the ear of a sleeping lion.

Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the
genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?

Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.

My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
liquor for us, teaching moderation.

When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
In other one on one situations like dating I did
drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.

I do not drink liquor at all.
I also don't smoke or do any drugs.

Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.

While I must comply with the law, I lament that
parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
or teach moderation in this way.

Doug wrote:
Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture.

The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."

Any thoughts?

Hi, Kane,

Early onset of the use of alcohol or other drugs is correlated to major
dysfunction in adults who have identified themselves as chemically
dependent. If a child carries the set of genes that increase one's
vulnerability to alcoholism, it is hard to imagine how he or she could be
taught to drink responsibly, since the inability to do so is the very
essence of the disorder.

Why are you addressing JUST ME, Doug. I am NOT THE one that posted
suggesting that this is a good practice.

Are you fraudulently CHERRY PICKING, AGAIN, Doug? Pretending one of your
"sicophants"[sic] isn't the one supporting such practices?

Nonetheless, Children are bombarded by the advertising of an industry which
sells 70% of its product to 15% of its customers. Despite governmental
pressure to deliver messages about responsible drinking, the liquor industry
is hard put to encourage drinking in small quanities. I am reminded of the
late 1970's, when sale of alcoholic drinks leveled off and became stagnant.
The industry came up with a multitude of new beverages aimed at the very
young and female (cheap pop wines, etc). An unexpected benefit of the
marketing plan was male consumers buying "light beer," a beverage designed
for the female market.

Without doubt, drinking at an early age can only increase cellular
dependence on alcohol. Alcoholism is a biological, psychological and social
disease. Introducing a child to drinking at any early age in the misguided
mission of providing a more secure social environment for experimentation
can only ignite the biological component for those who carry the genetic
coding of alcoholism. There is substantial evidence that drinking at an
early age interrupts developmental tasks of children, impacting the
psychological domain of chemical dependency disorders. Where will the
children go and how much will they drink after the home "experiment" with
alcohol is concluded?

Those who are not predisposed toward alcoholism do not need to be taught how
to drink responsibly. Those who are, are incapable of it.

Children learn about alcohol by watching how adults in their family system
use it. No amount of controlled training on responsible drinking is going
to override what the children observe their parents doing. How and why
adult members of the family use alcohol is the overriding social message
children incorporate into their construction of what drinking will do for
them.

Lessons in responsible drinking delivered by, say, an alcoholic father to
his son, is likely to produce the same results as blowing a french horn into
the ear of a sleeping lion.

Yep. Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?

Grooming the other's perhaps?

0:- R R R R RR ...

you are SUCH a phony.







--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the
genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?

Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.

My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
liquor for us, teaching moderation.

When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
In other one on one situations like dating I did
drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.

I do not drink liquor at all.
I also don't smoke or do any drugs.

Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.

While I must comply with the law, I lament that
parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
or teach moderation in this way.

What do you mean by "this way," Greg?

Parents themselves setting the example by drinking in moderation, as you
say your parents did with you and your sibs, or letting you and they
have a little drinky yourselves now and then?

You are fogging the issue.

Doug made it very clear what his position was. Now you are trying to
drag it back to your "pretending" bull****.

Be clear, Greg, or you in fact DO sound like an alchy in mindset if not
in factual use.

That's the kind of equivocating common to drunks and druggies.

Which do you mean?

Kane

PS. There are theories such as generational skipping, where no one in a
family for three generations has ever had a drop, yet they exhibit all
the characteristics of the drug effected family....the dynamic of
personal interaction being carried forward even though the drugs or
alcohol were not.

Weird stuff, eh? I haven't made my mind up about it, but you can trust
Doug will have an opinion. R R R R R K





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Why are you addressing JUST ME, Doug. I am NOT THE one that posted
suggesting that this is a good practice.

Hi, Kane,

....Because you are the one who asked me if I had any thoughts on the
subject.

"Interesting you should pop into this thread at THIS particular
juncture."

"The subject had gone, before this, to the idea of "teaching children to
drink responsibly."

"Any thoughts?"

I gave you my thoughts on the subject.

Yep. Now why did you address ONLY me, Doug?

Because only you asked for my thoughts on the subject.

You appear a bit...how does one say....defensive. g