| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

"Michael S. Morris" wrote in message ...
Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003

[various snips]

Kane wrote:
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?

I don't know how she takes it.

I can see how you do. I'm waiting for her answer. I presume she has
some capacity for empathy and could transfer the reaction she had to
me on to children that receive pain and humiliation from their trusted
caregiver, their parent.

Apparently you aren't ready to think about that.

I've been a fan of Jayne
for years now,

I'm not interested your adoration situation.

so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
by your attempts to do that.

Your "suspect/wish/hope" has a great deal more to do, I would suspect,
with your desire to preserve your particular sick world view.

I know your attempts to do the
same in my direction have been laughable.

You are inconsistent. Your defense of Jayne and your responses to me
show clearly that for you I and my views on parenting are no laughing
matter. Do you always lie to yourself when you don't like what you see
presented to you about yourself?


Kane:
Get my drift here?

Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
ourselves.

Now you've made me laugh. You just demonstrated to me you GOT my point
at some level even as you pathetically flop about trying to avoid the
knowledge.

Adults, and especially at the remove of this virtual medium, can pick
and choose. You or Jayne or anyone else here can reject me and any
abuse you think you are suffering at my hands or my attempts to abuse
you.

I haven't laid a hand on either of you. And according to you Jayne is
unlikely ("I suspect") to and you have not been effected by my
attempts..(of course...r r r r). But what choice does a child have
when a parent choses humiliation and pain?

Even if they could leave, as they tend to in their teen years...more
and more progressively until they are out the door for good, the loss
is often to much for them to bare so they stay and develop masking
behaviors so both you and they will not know the pain you are causing
them. Or the systemic injuries to their development.

Kane:
And you and I are adults...presumably.

As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
pain and humiliation. Which is true.

Well, I guess. I did so state, did I not? It's not like I'm trying to
fool anyone. I'm pointed out the similarity, though miniscule by
comparision, what YOU do to children when you use cp or other
punishments.

As I saw it also, however,
Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

My real purpose isn't to cause her pain and humiliation but to take
into account what a child feels. In other words I was appealing to her
capacity, if she has any, for empathy. That cannot be an intellectual
exercies. There has to be actual experience. I graciously offered it
to her. She can do with it what she wants or is capable of.

[]

Kane:
Were you or any child you know spanked for
not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.

What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Who says I deny it in the other direction. I have not said children
don't learn from being spanked. I have said that pain interfers with
the desired lesson and can have serious unwanted other effects.

Kane:
A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.

My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

This is simple nonsense.

Please write Dennis Embry and tell him that. This study was a very
small one not even about "spanking" when it began. He is a traffic
engineering investigator, not a child development specialist. He was a
stunned by his results as you are resistent to the outcomes he found.

I can teach a child to stay out of traffic by the use of pain. I was a
treatment specialist in adolescent mental health facilities. They
relied heavily on just such methods. Penalties, punishments, etc. and
I was one of those that discovered the power of relationship over dog
trainer pain applications..

Hell, in recent years the dog and other animal trainers are using the
methods, highly successfully, that I helped develope. They probably
never heard of me because I didn't do much writing during that time.
Kindness, gentleness, redirection to desired behaviors and recognition
of the child's wanted behaviors pay off big time, have no unwanted
side effedts.

We aren't talking "letting the child
play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
do what the child wants to do.

And you called the Embry study "nonsense."

First of all there are no 1,000 times a week such things happen. If so
then you are unecessarily exposing the child to danger .. for what
purpose I can't imagine. I can't imagine that a mother or father take
children out shopping or on other trips more than 10 or 15 times tops
per week. It's really more like four or five.

And your description of the child strongly suggests you have had to
overcome some very bad side effects from the very things I warn about.
If a child is that willing to struggle against you holding their hand
there is something very wrong going on.

I've pointed out the need for children to experience their
environment. Toddlers should either be carried, carted, or hooked up
for safety. When you cannot because of their size then they are likely
getting old enough to teach more.

A discussion of traffic and safety is never out of line.

So, you've read the Embry study and you can show that it was nonsense
how?


Kane:
The second answer is in the Embry study.

The Embry study is so much bull****.

I'll write Dennis and ask how he managed to, in the middle of a long
busy research profession working with traffic engineering, how he
managed to slip up and produce "bull****."

My children were trained by
spanking not to run out in the street.

Your children were trained by their complete dependence on you to be
terrified of you, and one day you will pay for it. Or rather they will
and if you have a conscience you'll suffer at what you see happening
to them.

My children habitually reached
(and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
in a parking lot.

Terror can cause them to make errors that could be injurious or fatal.
Change the circumstances just a tad and they can easily become
confused. If my child has my trust he or she will be far less likely
to screw up under pressure.

They stop at the edge of the street when walking
along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
the
sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
self-discipline,
and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
supervise them in the way you are suggesting.

How can a child not have greater freedoms if they learned from the
beginning the desired behavior without pain and humiliation? In this
case they do it because they want to, not because someone threatens
them. A spanked child isn't more safe, just more locked into a
response. It's easy to distract someone that has learned a behavior
from fear than it is someone that learned eagerly and willingly.

Kane:
Children told what to do have
an out from the behavior you want stopped.

"Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."

Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.

This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
seen.

It's most appalling that you would resort to this ignorant response.
It's a metaphore if the child is too small to use a trampoline, silly
boy. Put some cusions on the floor for the child to jump on.

This is so typical of "spank freeks." The small amount of modification
of the environment to allow the child to do what child are driven by
nature to do, jump, run, exercise, and the instant reversion to
"spanking works" with little or no concern for it's side effect is
what is appalling.

A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
is small and is jumping on a bed.

If the child is too small to use one safely. Does that then reclude
the child jumping somewhere ELSE? Or are children to be spanked into
non-jumping behavior while developing a hardy terror of the parent?

My daughter Helen injured herself
quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
teeth
all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
room
and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.

Failure to supervise adequately...not that that is a crime...it's
happened to every parent. Do you think you'd have kept her from
jumping somewhere she might have hurt herself if you had spanked her
for jumping?

You'd have had a busy life...let me see, the chair !SPANK!, the edge
of the porch !SPANK!, the the back porch, the front porch, grandmas
porch, the couch, the loveseat, the doghouse roof....are you getting
my drift here?

You can break a neck on a trampoline.

You can break your neck leaning too far out a window. That's why we
don't let small children have physical access to unbarred open windows
if we are a good parent. And spanking a small child for going by one
window seldom works for all windows, or other openings they can fall
through. They simply do not connect the spanking with the opening the
same way you do, but rather with the treacherous vicious untrustworthy
adult that has to be watched like a hawk to keep from being hurt and
humiliated.

All the while they are busy with THAT little survival requirement they
are neglecting other developmental tasks. Children with hitting
parents, even when they play, tend not to play with the freedom of
unhit children. The former lack the capacity to concentrate as similar
levels, as they are distracted by the always dangerous possibility
their parent will flip out again (that's how the child sees it).

And I think permitting children to jump on one before
those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
taking a big risk.

Now you are going to lecture me by parroting me. How neat.

Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.

And the only alternantive that you think is going to work is spanking
before that magic age of reason?

And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
the risks.

I love to see the very thing I've said and been preaching reframed and
fed back to me as the wisdom of the poster.

Can you really not see any alternatives you could trust but spanking?

Listening to Public Radio this morning I heard a interview with a guy
talking about learning from a dog training coach and all the trouble
he had with using punishment on his dog until the coach helped him
learn to not yell, not hit, not throw things, not to use shock collars
(a common dog training paradigm until recent years).

He turned his dog around in time.

Then he said a few weeks back a brand new puppy came into the
household and starting with the new training he'd learned, the gentle
directive approach this puppy learned in a couple of weeks to come,
laydown, stay, and was housebroken, and was loving and trusting in a
way his pain taught dog was not.

Made me think of you Mike. I almost forgot to stop for my morning
paper just contemplating if this would make any sense at all to you
and the millions just like you that are stuck in your bias.

Mike Morris
)

I've used the methods I'm telling you with severely disturbed violent
socially malajusted youth. It's a tougher go, but I could do it so
remarkably fast observers (and those were specialists of various
kinds...special ed teachers, child psychologists, early childhood
development people) that at first they thought it was a fluke.

So they started calling me to come to their venues, where I couldn't
possibly know the children, and they threw everything at me, from the
most agressive children (one hit me in the crotch with a chair the
first time he met me...three hours later when it was time for me to
leave he cried and held on to me wanting me to stay) to the most
passive child that wouldn't even react to their name...and a gentle
approach based on child development needs worked.

The only ones I ever failed on ... those weren't really complete
failures, I simply could not continue working with them.. not my
clients.. and once again subjected to punative methods.

As you may have noticed I didn't come here to win a popularity
contest, and you are going to see major attempts to attack me.

That tell you anything? Or are you just going to be another stuck with
yourself ninny?

Kane

"Doug" wrote in message ink.net...
Jayne Kulikauskas writes:

Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and
bullying
style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral
authority.

Hi, Jayne!

Professionals using a family-systems approach may have an explanation for
Kane's choice of the moral low road.

But you wouldn't try a little amateur psychologizing now would you
Doug...r r r r.

Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Your ethics are hangin' out again, Dung.

He said that
he was a small kid and other children picked on him.

I'm sure I'm the only child that ever happened to. I did have other
things going on my life as well.

Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

I love the reframing. Do you really think people are so dim as to not
notice that.

Defend myself, becomes a mission to assault children...oh, very good.

You kind of left out my age, apparent from my referances to
highschool.

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
broke.

Try quoting in context.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting. A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

In another post, Kane tells us the age at which he decided not to hit
children.

Other than defending myself I didn't before then either. And my age
was 19.

But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.

Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
a medium where we can't even see each other?

Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe
that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
priority for you at all.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?

Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.

Others would say he is a
self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
or her detrement.

But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?

He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?

Kane

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
Kane wrote
If you aren't smart enough to see through my
style then I doubt you are smart enough to
figure out ways to parent without pain and
humiliation. But I could be wrong.

This is a guy who clearly has no impulse control
telling other people to resist impulses.

If I had no impulse control I'd take up displacing little girls from
their mothers and homes while giving them showers and spanking them.

He preaches against humiliation but practices the opposite.

You have proof that I humiliate people in the non virtual world?
Please post what you know about me outside of these ngs, and while you
are at it include those sources supplying you such information.

And you have never ONCE seen me preach against posters posting any
damn thing in any damn style they wish. In fact I encourage them to
let it all hang out.

But then we aren't really talking about what people do here, are we
then. We are talking about the vicious treatment of children that some
do...such as you did and continue by displacing that child, sitting on
your lazy out of work by choice ass, and sucking off the mother what
belongs to the child.

Next he'll probably have sex to preach virginity.

Kinda stuck on that subject aren't you? Tell us, just what DID go
through your mind when you made that sixyear old little girl of your
fiance strip and shower in front of you? "Discipline"?

Yeah, sure.

I love being chastised by someone Greg's caliber. Those of you that
use google, let me suggest, before you give a moment's credibility to
this little **** you do a search on

[greg "cold shower" group:alt.support.child-protective-services]

An admonishment from Greg about my desire to have people stop using CP
on children is, in its own perverse way, a benediction.

Kane

Kane writes:

Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Hi, Kane!

Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes. Who
else's would it be?

Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the kids and
broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in fear. You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your mild
manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that you could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Here is what you said exactly:

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good deal
of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
broke.

"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight of
me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that other
bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
my school years were easy.

"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't violence, are
you?"

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
broke.

Try quoting in context.

I have included the actual quotes in this post.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.

They were children.

A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not mention the
age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I wouldn't know
how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking isn't
hitting?"
But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.


I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in an
upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
a medium where we can't even see each other?


Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV label
would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?


Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members who have
received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child, either.

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to
believe
that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told
you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me
an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent.
You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
priority for you at all.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.


Thank you.

You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of exacting
descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have occurred
once. For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their legs
and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description is
applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.
First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way; in
fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second, the
majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or neglected in
any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment. Of
those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which account for
around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much less
severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries represent
less than 1% of substantiated cases.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?


No.

Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.


I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic flaws in CPS
practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the fruit of
parental wrongdoing.

You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are more
likely to be violent.

Others would say he is a
self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
or her detrement.


I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government agencies
inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or "acting
out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of families.

But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?


Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these newsgroups.
Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly implies
that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize for the
transgression.

He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?


No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.


I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me of, I
would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever preempted
folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked children, you
are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which methods
of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of reasons.

But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different. Parents
are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or not to
spank is up to the parent's descreation.

It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in making,
as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?


About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us one of
your guesses. You were wrong.

Ready to guess again?

"Kane" wrote in message
m...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old. After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I had
tried this sooner.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Kane" wrote in message
m...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old. After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I
had
tried this sooner.

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

What was he touching?

Best, Dan

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Kane" wrote in message
m...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish I
had
tried this sooner.

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
being calm and consistent.

What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
being calm and consistent.

Good for you!

Just use spanking when all else fails.

What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

I didn't allow my kids into the kitchen for anything but meals.

If they weren't sitting at the table they weren't in the kitchen.

Get your son his own computer... a Vtech laptop for kids.

Best, Dan

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed
on
being calm and consistent.

Good for you!

Just use spanking when all else fails.

What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

I didn't allow my kids into the kitchen for anything but meals.

If they weren't sitting at the table they weren't in the kitchen.

Darlink, you are much too restrictive. Much to the point of being abusive
to your children. I hope you are just a troll and not really do have any
children. Or that they have been safely taken away from you? Kitchens,
children, are love darlink, and not to be confused with nuclear reactor.


Get your son his own computer... a Vtech laptop for kids.

Oh, thank you so much ~Abigale~ I turn blue waiting for your next book.

ZZ

Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own
slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and
zealots about it."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for anyone
over the age of 18.

And the facts are clearly outlined in the research, should anyone care to
investigate. Spanking is a risk factor that positively correlates with both
short and long term negative outcomes. So, spanking zealots have neither
logic or fact on their side, Julie.

Without logic or fact why should it *not* be left up to individuals?

If logic or fact were absent in the case of spanking, you would have a
point. Since neither logic nor fact can support spanking, it's time for
outside intervention.

LaVonne