Judgmental jerks

On 19 Apr 2006 11:23:45 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

There is usually something quirky about never-spanked girls. If I were
going to pick a word, I would say, "Fragile" often describes them.

LOL. I doubt it. Many of the women of strength and character I know
have never been spanked. They are most certainly NOT fragile.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

One of the fastest ways to pave the road to failure is to try to impose
a scheme that runs counter to the beliefs of the people. Politically,
it is call "illegitimacy." More common folks usually call it
"tyranny."

As with spanking and no-spank alternatives, that religion we call
"science" seems to conveniently forget when things don't workout as
they're supposed to. What's the old joke about doctors being able to
"bury" their mistakes? Not everyone has the "license" to do so.

Science is always a product of its time. In time, life moves on
whether the science of the day was right or wrong. Outside of Rome,
the debate over a geocentric or heliocentric universe didn't make a
whole lot of difference in the way most people lived their lives. Even
today, nobody much thinks about whether the earth goes around the sun
or vice versa. Ask somebody a century from now what they made on their
SAT or GRE, and you'll probably get a very strange look in response.

The debate over spanking will be no different. It came. It went. Life
moved on with people doing as they had always done.

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.

While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have "selective inattention." We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is "normal" and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Doan

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.
While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

If only we'd let bank robbers and murderers to rob and kill just a
little as they went about seeking to rob and murder on a large scale....

R R R R

Your logic is, to say the least, Droanatian.

Hihihi! Try using drugs instead.

Your logic is...anti-spanking zealotS. ;-)


One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have ?selective inattention.? We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is ?normal? and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Mmmm...and you consider yourself the wonderful product of carefully
applied spanking?

And you are a product of "never-spanke"???

Or are you just another self deluded survivor?

Yup! Me and about a few BILLIONS others!

I'd say by the quality of your lies you were yet another dismal failure
of the spanking culture.

Have you looked up the "Hutterites"? ;-)

Why take the chance of producing more like you?

Have you asked your mom what crap shot she took? ;-)

AF

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:01:03 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.

While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Absolutely. Positive parenting works, ime.

And the proof is???

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have “selective inattention.” We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is “normal” and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Except that those of us who work with many kids have seen exactly what
the researchers have seen.

You only see what you wanted to see through layers and layers of selective
glasses! Meanwhile, the world moves on.

Doan

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 11:23:45 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

There is usually something quirky about never-spanked girls. If I were
going to pick a word, I would say, "Fragile" often describes them.

LOL. I doubt it. Many of the women of strength and character I know
have never been spanked. They are most certainly NOT fragile.

Does this include Mother Theresa of Calcutta?

Doan

That really is the flaw in the "scientific method" as applied to the
social sciences. From selection of a problem for study to summation of
results, selective filtering too often colors the thinking. In the
end, the claims made by science on how people should live their lives
involve an appeal to authority. That authority is the god known as
"science." Parents are told to not trust their own experience, but to
believe the experts, those de facto priests purporting to speak for the
god of "science."

Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:01:03 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.

While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Absolutely. Positive parenting works, ime.

And the proof is???

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have "selective inattention." We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is "normal" and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Except that those of us who work with many kids have seen exactly what
the researchers have seen.

You only see what you wanted to see through layers and layers of selective
glasses! Meanwhile, the world moves on.

Doan

Opinions wrote:
One of the fastest ways to pave the road to failure is to try to impose
a scheme that runs counter to the beliefs of the people. Politically,
it is call "illegitimacy."

More common folks usually call it
"tyranny."

Excuse me from interrupting your grumbling ruminations, but one of the
most common terms Tyrants use to describe those that rebel, is
"illegitimate."

As with spanking and no-spank alternatives, that religion we call
"science" seems to conveniently forget when things don't workout as
they're supposed to.

Science and religion have little in common.

If you look at the world, where science has been the more frequently
chosen discipline for explaining and examining, and where religion has
prevailed OVER science (third world countries come to mind) you will
find prosperity on the one hand, and poverty, disease, short desperate
lives, and misery. What to guess which is which?

What's the old joke about doctors being able to
"bury" their mistakes? Not everyone has the "license" to do so.

It's not an old joke, just a saying.

And it's a lie. Every patient who dies must have a report, often if
unattended, a coroners report as to the cause of death. A hospitalized
patient who dies triggers a committee that peer reviews the doctor's
actions that attended that patient.

And if they have unexplained or medically CAUSED deaths in too great a
number certification standards can be broken. Know what happens to a
hospital that loses it's certification?

Science is always a product of its time.

We can certainly hope so.

In time, life moves on
whether the science of the day was right or wrong.

Did you not read Dorothy's explanation of what science is? There is NO
end point where any reputable scientist says, "the is the definitive,
ultimate answer to this question."

It's rarely a question of being right or wrong but more often, 'this is
what we know so far.'

Outside of Rome,
the debate over a geocentric or heliocentric universe didn't make a
whole lot of difference in the way most people lived their lives.

At the time (and we can't really be sure of that) but certainly for the
future generations. Had we not made the discoveries related to the
nature of the universe you and I would be sending smoke signals.

Even
today, nobody much thinks about whether the earth goes around the sun
or vice versa.

What makes you think science requires constant thinking validation by
each of us to be effective and useful?

Ask somebody a century from now what they made on their
SAT or GRE, and you'll probably get a very strange look in response.

I wonder who many centagenarians will be around to ask? 0:-

Ask someone what they got last year though and you may be treated to a
lot of conversation on the subject.

The debate over spanking will be no different. It came. It went. Life
moved on with people doing as they had always done.

Yes, that's correct. The "debate over spanking" will go.

And you see it going even now. The upsurge we see is the precursor to
the change you are going to likely live just long enough to witness
significantly.

In fact, you have. How many nations had outlawed spanking when YOU were
a child?

How many public schools and districts had banned paddling of students
when you were a child?

If you take a count of each, and compare, you will be participating in
the scientific method. What conclusion you draw will be then colored
ONLY, if you are subjective in your conclusion, by YOU.

Ask others, and you'll find that the difference is a powerful trend line
toward more humane, and thankfully, successful strategies for parenting.

It's sad to be left behind but when YOU went back to punishment and
spanking with your children you gave up not only on them, but on yourself.

Now you have cut yourself off from objective rational thinking. That's
really sad.

0:-



Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.
While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have "selective inattention." We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is "normal" and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Doan



--
"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

Opinions wrote:
That really is the flaw in the "scientific method" as applied to the
social sciences. From selection of a problem for study to summation of
results, selective filtering too often colors the thinking.

You seem to miss the little habit of peer reviewing for publication.

In the
end, the claims made by science on how people should live their lives
involve an appeal to authority.

If reason is authority, then yes.

That authority is the god known as
"science."

Or critical reasoning, take your pick. They are the same.

Parents are told to not trust their own experience,

We are all told that at times. Often with very good reasons. I have seen
again and again people that knew better, each what they hoped were safe
mushrooms, only to end up in the emergency room, and or dead.

but to
believe the experts,

Want to go mushroom picking with me?

Want someone other than scientists to provide the data for structural
materials you live and work in?

those de facto priests purporting to speak for the
god of "science."

How sad. And desperate you are.

You are using a product of "science" to communicate.

If you drive, the principles of science were used over and over to
create that vehicle in concept and design.

The same is true of office buildings, and the medications you are on.

What would you use rather than science to create the same world you live
in today...or would you be dead because you refused to rely on science?

You folks are pitiful.

0:-




Doan wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:01:03 -0700, Doan wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, toto wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006 09:51:15 -0700, "Opinions"
wrote:

The question is: Is it worth it? The fact remains that, on a
consistent basis, no-spanks cannot raise better children than everyone
else. Worse, they know they can't. No-spank is a PREFERENCE, not a
divine mandate to be imposed on mankind by quasi-religious extremists.
While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior
briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995),
researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective
discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed
parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who
were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would
need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results
showed that families who start spanking before their children are a
year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as
often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus,
children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to
teach by spanking.

Now, replace that with non-cp alternatives. Would you think the outcome
would be different?

Absolutely. Positive parenting works, ime.

And the proof is???

Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative
behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children
usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked
(Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be
that they should try harder not to get caught.

"Power and Chapieski (1986) qualify their conclusion that physical
punishment is an ineffective disciplinary strategy as follows, .It is
important to note, however, that reliance on physical punishment, not
physical punishment itself, was the critical variable.
Preliminary analyses showed no significant differences between
the occasional-punishment and no-punishment groups. (p.274)."

By stigmatizing any use of spanking, professional consultants will
discourage parents who rely on spanking from learning how to employ its
conditional use instead. ie. that is to initially use spanking or another
punishment in combination with reasoning primarily as a back-up for
time-out or milder tactics, with spanking eventually phased out in favor
of greater reliance on reasoning and negotiation."

One reason why almost everyone overestimates the effectiveness of
spanking is that we have "selective inattention." We simply do not
remember when spanking fails, as it does most of the time, because it
contradicts what we want to believe. Partly this is because our
culture believes spanking is "normal" and partly because many of us
were spanked as children. It is difficult for us as adults to relate
our adult problems to childhood spanking or to condemn our parents.

No. It's precisely because we have personally experienced it that we
know the claims made by anti-spanking zealotS just aren't true in
reality.

Except that those of us who work with many kids have seen exactly what
the researchers have seen.

You only see what you wanted to see through layers and layers of selective
glasses! Meanwhile, the world moves on.

Doan



--
"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

This is a wonderful first cause of non-spank thinking.... Violence is
bad.

Who says we want children to be less violent? We are at war in Iraq..
should we conduct a less violent war? When injustice is seen, should
its response be less violent?

This is a eunuch position. This is the voice of loud women, and the men
who listen.

Violence is part of who men are, and less of who women are. There is a
time to be polite, and a time to be rude. That's why I've always liked
Winston Churchill. Needed in war, discarded in peace.

Thank goodness violent people are available to step up to the plate
when it is their time.

wrote:
This is a wonderful first cause of non-spank thinking.... Violence is
bad.

Who says we want children to be less violent? We are at war in Iraq..
should we conduct a less violent war? When injustice is seen, should
its response be less violent?

This is a eunuch position. This is the voice of loud women, and the men
who listen.

Violence is part of who men are, and less of who women are. There is a
time to be polite, and a time to be rude. That's why I've always liked
Winston Churchill. Needed in war, discarded in peace.

Thank goodness violent people are available to step up to the plate
when it is their time.

I see.

You feel that it's okay to condition a child to violence then. All for
.... what, exactly?

What makes you think unspanked children can't be violent if violence is
needed?

You are advocating for people to grow up to be GENERALLY violent, "just
in case," then?

By the way, I know a number of un-spanked that have grown up to join the
military.

So, now you are prepared to tell parents they must raise their children
to be violent. Excellent. Do it.

I think it would be a real promoter of NON-SPANKING agenda though. A
lot of people might just wake up that never thought of it quite like you
have so artfully put it.

You are full if it.

0:-




--
"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