If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: Kane said: Where did I say the Effect of CP? Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0? A question by definition cannot be a "lie." It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar! So neither of us "lied." But you did! My answer to your question? There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or then. I asked you a question. You just lied again! WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE? Unwanted effects of CP. And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED! Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible claims. Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity! No, you exposed yourself for the child you are. Attempting to make a "lie" out of something not intended to decieve, and making IT the focus instead of the content of the material offered. Evasions, childish babbling, screaming your accusations, claiming things that are not so, but are because YOU say they are. The only juvenile here is you! Ask beccafromlalaland, my sock puppet! ;-) Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake, possibly. So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-) Yes. But only because YOU instisted my meaning had to do with "cause and effect." So effect doesnot mean "effect"??? LOL! Insisting that they are one and the same, so that you could attach "causation" to the study, which is NOT a claim I made. So effect is not "causation"??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID? LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read. How does the order of something one reads constitute the sum total of entire document? The subject is the thesis and the body is the supporting arguments. If the thesis is WRONG, the rest is USELESS! If you made the claim, it's WRONG. The only "claim" I made I made in the subject line was the causual use of the term "effect." It was YOU that attacked "cause" to it, to lie. To try to make it something it was not. So effect is not effect??? You then denied making the claim; THAT IS A LIE - A BLATANT LIE! No, it was a mistake. And not a deliberate attempt to decieve. And it was in response you YOUR amending what "effect" meant...which I had not claimed. I never said "causation" in relation to the study. YOU added that. If you make a mistake then apologize and make a correction. Here is your chance! The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly little pointless ****. Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed. Nope. Labeling you for the silly little pointless **** you are by forcing meaning into something not intended. More adhom. How typical of you! Tell me, is your mom approve of that too? ;-) Your silly game of using "cause and effect" to mean "causation." Nothing more. LOL! "cause and effect" doesn't mean "causation"??? Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-) My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing going for you but these small asides and tangental excapes when you have been caugth making a mistake. So you mom taught to insult people when they pointed out the LIES to you? What a mom! ;-) You were, I caught you at it and now you are busy trying to distract from NOT understand the Canadian study, or the meaning of the data, or even, Doan, that it was not a Canadian population representative sample. LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that! Rather than admit you missed that, here we are, YOU trying to argue about MY having LIED after YOU changed the meaning of my subject line. Here your chance to show me the math that prove the above ASSumption! Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! ;-) Doan Doan Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families. The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in the study. The sample size was 33. I am reading it right now. You do NOT have the study, if you are making that claim. It was N 13 and N 20, with both being considered in the study, and both clearly identified as having a difference...but only in the pre-action portion of the study by baseline behaviors. It was a total of 33. All the charts, all the identifiers, all call it a 33 family study. I never claimed it was published in a "journal," nor that it was peer reviewed and have in fact said to the best of my knowledge it was not (not being able to prove a negative, of course). And I said punishment was not used I pointed out that I differed with the author on the use of the term "punish" for setting the child down for an instructional viewing of other children performing "safe play." If you have the study, then you are lying about how he presented it, and if you don't, you are lying when you claimed you did. That is a deliberate attempt to deceive. You meant you LIED! ;-) What deliberate attempt to deceived did I in fact perform? You are simply shoveling **** to distract from our conversation where I exposed your ignorance of study protocols and the meaning of terminology. You got hammered on your failure to see that the age range differences were irrelevant to the outcome being examined, and YOU kept asking why the older people had lower or higher incidences of bad life outcomes....when NO SUCH CORRELATION WAS OFFERED BY THE STUDY. You, sir, unless you were lying, were mistaken. Live with it and stop your silly assed weaseling. OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick. Neither! I was right all along! You were hairsplitting to remove any intended meaning and insisting on injecting your own meaning without consultation with the author. When I offer my meaning you reject it and insist that YOUR understanding has to be MY meaning. Can't have it both ways, Doan. You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could not have been a mistake. LOL! Tell that to your mom! In other words, you have not relevant factual rebutal. In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected my error. Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"? Never. Why should I? Have ever even admitted to your obvious mistakes, let alone apologized? I don't expect you to. Post evidence of my mistake, which I DID should be suffienct for someone that's ethical, someone thats honest, someone that has integrety to stop using the same mistake, sans it's correction to pretend the poster lied or attempted to deceive. You are a shame to family. You're a little ****head. Nothing more. Oops! More adhom. Opps yourself, moron, you do it all the time. Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-) I can't ask her but I doubt she would be doing anything other than laughing at your run from your error instead of a honest and courageous admission. You screwed up and rather than admit it, you have gone to the usual low rent sloppy attack mode. Try to force meaning into someone else's words rather than ask them, and rather than accept their clarification. Scum behavior. And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you choose "liar." And you are STUPID! ;-) I admit to be stupid enough to think you have even a shred of honesty or ethic. Good for you. You are consistent. And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-) Opps! Ad hom, Doan. What would your parents think? You cannot win and argument honestly, and have nothing left but this small minded ****ant pseudo debate, which is blatant fallacious crappola in debating circles. You got caught and you haven't the balls, like I had, to admit to the mistake and move on. I don't even want an apology from you. At least I certainly don't expect one. I assume, as you should, that a mistake isn't deliberate aimed at anyone. YOU want to pretend it's a lie and aimed at someone to decieve them. You, sir, are projecting, big time. That's YOUR intent with nearly all you post here. To decieve. You touted Baumrind study to this ng as "The Gold Standard" for methodology, then attacked Embry on the grounds his N of families wasn't adequate for a scientific study...while all the time knowing that the Baumrind study had the same N of families. Or had you forgotten and the criticism of Embry on your part for the number of subjects was just a "mistake?" You had no desire to decieve, right? Doan Weasel boy, run run run. R R R R R R |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
Doan wrote: On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: Kane said: Where did I say the Effect of CP? Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0? A question by definition cannot be a "lie." It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar! So neither of us "lied." But you did! My answer to your question? There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or then. I asked you a question. You just lied again! WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE? Unwanted effects of CP. And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED! Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible claims. Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity! No, you exposed yourself for the child you are. Attempting to make a "lie" out of something not intended to decieve, and making IT the focus instead of the content of the material offered. Evasions, childish babbling, screaming your accusations, claiming things that are not so, but are because YOU say they are. The only juvenile here is you! Ask beccafromlalaland, my sock puppet! ;-) Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake, possibly. So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-) Yes. But only because YOU instisted my meaning had to do with "cause and effect." So effect doesnot mean "effect"??? LOL! The meaning, as in all language, of a word depends considerably on context. Had I said that the "effect" was causal it would be clear I was claiming "causality." Since I clearly stated repeatedly the study was (as most all social science research is by it limitations) "correlational" or a "correlation," my meaning was clear if you read everything I wrote. In other words, you intentionally or mistakenly (only you know for sure 0:-) presumed I mean 'causal.' In fact, because you linked the word "effect" to "cause," to create the argument that I was claiming "causation" it appears very much like you weren't mistaken but in fact most deliberately attempted to make a link you could not make unless you could context. And the context was not there. In other words, Doan, you are avoiding the embarrassment of being caught at making a mistaken claim about the Canadian study and thrashing about wildly on a tangent to divert others, and possibly your own attention from your mistake, or ignorance, or very possibly a deliberate lie. I think you are quite intelligent enought to figure out the real world circumstances that would tend to increase incidence of "never spanked or slapped" in a small population that had all abused removed from it first. That's why you are either stupid in your mistake, or lazy, or you knew and deliberatly lied thinking others could not figure it out for themselves. Only you know for sure. Insisting that they are one and the same, so that you could attach "causation" to the study, which is NOT a claim I made. So effect is not "causation"??? I made no such claim. I pointed out that my use of "correlation" to describe the study made plain that I had not used "effect" in the sense of cause and effect, that YOU gave to it. Now I know you are lying, and so do you. Making an argument by ignoring context is a deliberate (unless you missed my comments about the "correlational study") attempt to decieve. You are dodging the exposure of your mistake, or lie about the validity of the study. Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... are they mutually exclusive? ;-) They most certainly are for the you, the compulsive spanking apologist and advocate. 0:- I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID? LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read. How does the order of something one reads constitute the sum total of entire document? The subject is the thesis Nope. That's a presumption on your part. The subject, which is of course "titleing" -- or it would have more space for the subject field -- is a part of the whole. To establish the thesis for a document one requires space to abstract the piece. Even then it cannot be truly representive of the whole in detail and claims. You are attempting to mislead, or you are mistaken. 0:- and the body is the supporting arguments. If the thesis is WRONG, the rest is USELESS! You are now presuming the body does not stand alone. No title consitutes a "thesis." Please show your source of such a claim. You are wrong. And If I titled a piece in the subject line "LOOK AT THIS," it would not make any of the content wrong. Unless YOU can PROVE my intent was to deceive, as so often Fern's posts attempt to in the subject field (putting "CPS causes.." when no such thing was shown in the body) then you are speculating. You are free to speculate all you wish. No reference to a "subject" is indicated in any definition of a thesis in web documents, or others for that matter. Definitions of thesis on the Web: * an unproved statement put forward as a premise in an argument * dissertation: a treatise advancing a new point of view resulting from research; usually a requirement for an advanced academic degree wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * A thesis (literally: 'position' from the Greek θÎ*σις) is an intellectual proposition. ----In academia, a thesis or dissertation is a document that presents the author's research and findings and is submitted in support of candidature for a degree or professional qualification. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis * Tesis (Thesis) is a 1996 Spanish film. The feature debut of director Alejandro Amenábar, and written by him and Mateo Gil, it won seven 1997 Goya Awards, including the award for Best Film. It stars Ana Torrent, Fele MartÃ*nez and Eduardo Noriega. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis_(film) * The basic argument advanced by a speaker or writer who then attempts to prove it; the subject or major argument of a speech or composition. csmp.ucop.edu/crlp/resources/glossary.html * Original research often required for a Master's Degree. www.usd.edu/library/instruction/glossary.shtml * a written paper elaborating on original research, arguing a specific view. Theses are often written for the completion of an academic degree, usually the Master's degree. http://www.library.appstate.edu/tuto.../glossary.html * A substantial report which contains the result of research undertaken for either a Master’s degree or a PhD. www.vuw.ac.nz/home/glossary/ * An attitude or position on a problem taken by a writer or speaker with the purpose of proving or supporting it. library.thinkquest.org/23846/library/terms/ * A thesis is a substantial Master's level paper presenting independent research, which makes a contribution to the current body of knowledge in a scholarly field. gradschool.uoregon.edu/glossary.html * A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree. USU dissertations and theses are shelved between the reference collection and the computer section, and may not be borrowed. USU dissertations published from 1998 to the present are available electronically; select the Dissertations and Theses link listed under the Collections section on the LRC homepage. www.lrc.usuhs.mil/jargon/jargon_words.html * Doctoral Masters www.loc.gov/marc/dc/subtypes-20000612.html * A written work containig the results of research on a specific topic prepared by a candidate for a bachelor's or master's degree. www.sic.hr/eng/glossary.htm * The central idea of an essay. The thesis is a complete sentence (although sometimes it may require more than one sentence) that establishes the topic of the essay in clear, unambiguous language. http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/lite...glossary_t.htm * The documented results of research, resulting in a degree being confirmed on the researcher. www.petech.ac.za/library/libglos.htm * is an unproved statement, which is represented in the form of a premise, supported by arguments. Thesis tells a reader the point you are making in a topic-related discussion of your work. http://www.customresearchpapers.us/s...clopedia/t.php * A dissertation presented at third-level institutions www.hea.ie/index.cfm/page/sub/id/519 * An essay or treatise presented by a candidate in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree. http://www.seattlecentral.org/facult.../glossary.html * the point of the essay wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/130/133428/glossary.html * "a position to be maintained [supported] or proved" (Oxford Canadian Dictionary). A thesis is an answer to a judgement-type question. http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agrah...tpglossary.htm * The central argument that an author tries to make in a literary work. Some might consider JD Salinger’s thesis in The Catcher in the Rye that society often forces people to be phoney. http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/b...section2.rhtml * A written research component of a postgraduate programme having a value of 10 or more points. https://ndeva.auckland.ac.nz/nDeva/Help/terminology.htm * A sentence that establishes the point, main argument or direction of a paper. www.karinscourtyard.com/arkmanual/glossary.html * the University’s student information system. www.staffs.ac.uk/services/qis/gloss.html * The central argument of your essay. www.sonyaunrein.com/finalProject/glossary.htm * "The point." The thesis is the statement being made or the question being asked by the producer of the work; it is the centerpiece of that work. It may be stated overtly up front, or it may be subtly revealed through time. At its simplest, it the statement of Who? What? When? and Where plus the author's viewpoint or situation. Back. www.trincoll.edu/~tvogel/gloss.htm * is the particular proposition, or argument, relating to the topic that you advance in a paper. A thesis is a statement of interpretation, as opposed to observation. The thesis is the heart of any critical paper. homepages.stmartin.edu/fac_staff/smead/Writerly%20Terms.htm * Thesis statement or thesis is the principal focus of an essay. It is usually phrased in the form of a question to be answered, a problem to be solved, or an assertion to be argued. The word thesis derives from a Greek term meaning "something set down," and most good writers find that "setting down" their thesis in writing helps them tremendously in defining and clarifying their topic before they begin to write an outline or a rough draft. http://www.pearsoned.ca/text/flachma...ss_iframe.html * is the central idea in a work of writing, to which everything else in the work refers. In some way, each sentence and paragraph in an effective essay serves to support the thesis and to make it clear and explicit to an audience. Good writers, before they begin to write, often set down a thesis sentence or thesis statement to help them define their purpose. They may also write this statement into their essay as a promise and a guide to readers. members.tripod.com/hjohnsonmac0/TermsToKnow.htm All this is to dodge your embarassment at being either mistaken, or caught in a deliberate subtrefuge. A lie. If you made the claim, it's WRONG. The only "claim" I made I made in the subject line was the causual use of the term "effect." It was YOU that attacked "cause" to it, to lie. To try to make it something it was not. So effect is not effect??? Do you insist that a single word be extracted and it's meaning presumed only without the context surrounding it? Effect is effect if it's presented alone. Does my post include the words "correlational study?" You then denied making the claim; THAT IS A LIE - A BLATANT LIE! No, it was a mistake. And not a deliberate attempt to decieve. And it was in response you YOUR amending what "effect" meant...which I had not claimed. I never said "causation" in relation to the study. YOU added that. If you make a mistake then apologize and make a correction. I don't need to make an apology. If so, where's yours for your claim the Canadian study is invalid in all it's arguments based on a claim you make that turns out to be unfounded? Here is your chance! I made no mistake in using the word "effect" in the subject line, unless I used it with "cause" and failed to state that the study was correlational. Did I do so? The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly little pointless ****. Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed. Nope. Labeling you for the silly little pointless **** you are by forcing meaning into something not intended. More adhom. How typical of you! Tell me, is your mom approve of that too? ;-) I'm sure she would, given how you have dodged the truth about your claim to invalidate at study where you failed to do so, and failed to acknowledge your mistake or lie, and are now going on at length over a construct YOU created by picking a single word and claim it means something in context that it plainly did not. Your silly game of using "cause and effect" to mean "causation." Nothing more. LOL! "cause and effect" doesn't mean "causation"??? Of course it does. But I did not say "cause and effect," now did I? LOL! YOU did. That's why I used quote marks. Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-) My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing going for you but these small asides and tangental excapes when you have been caugth making a mistake. So you mom taught to insult people when they pointed out the LIES to you? What a mom! ;-) My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing going for you but these small asides and tangental escapes when you have been caught making a mistake. You have pointed out no "lies" to me. You have pulled a single word out of context, refused to accept the rest of the document and claimed I "lied." Pretty silly don't you think, considering that you are using it to cover up your embarassment? You were, I caught you at it and now you are busy trying to distract from NOT understand the Canadian study, or the meaning of the data, or even, Doan, that it was not a Canadian population representative sample. LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that! Please show how by so doing, eliminating what would have increased the percentage of spanked and slapped group, it would not have increased the "never." The abused would have included a high incidence, probably 100%, of children that had also been spanked and or slapped. That reduces the remaining sample size, thus multiplying the percentage of 'never.' One doesn't have to be smart or stupid to figure that out. Just aware of reality and of the processes and outcomes of sample culling. There's no magic to this, and I can't help but wonder how you do not know it already. Thus I assumed you lied. Could it be possibly my belief that you are quite intelligent is wrong? Or that my presumption that your childhood experience has crippled your critical thinking ability in some way is true? Rather than admit you missed that, here we are, YOU trying to argue about MY having LIED after YOU changed the meaning of my subject line. Here your chance to show me the math that prove the above ASSumption! Come on, Kane. I DARE YOU! ;-) Math? Why would it take math? It's simple logic. If you have N sample size with some having A only and some having B only, and some having A and B together, and you remove all those with A characteristic, more likely to have B in connection to A, and many, if not all will have an AB combination. the lack of A and B in the remaining sample N is going to be increased by percentage. In fact there will be no A at all in the final sample. So the final sample will have no A, and much less B, and more of the N that were "never-spanked." There can be NO never spanked or slapped in A. So where are they? In the final sample, of course, increasing the percentage of never-spanked. No math is needed. Doan I dare you, without shouting or the frantic arm waving your choice of words indicates, to show logically how Never-spanked could not be concentrated to increase the percentage in the final sample, when the group was divided as it was. ......snip............ Did you miss this part below, or have you decided that all discussion that might prove your history of lying best be avoided? Or was this simple a mistake? Or are you looking for a single word, that by taken from context, linked to a phrase to create another meaning, then arguing about it would be a good way to avoid this little mistake below? You touted Baumrind study to this ng as "The Gold Standard" for methodology, then attacked Embry on the grounds his N of families wasn't adequate for a scientific study...while all the time knowing that the Baumrind study had the same N of families. Want to tell the folks the sample size? Want to fix your mistake, or apologize for your deliberate attempt to deceive when claimed that number used by Embry was insufficient? Or could it be the Baumrind study was insufficient and no Gold Standard at all, but just your hyperbole? As Riak noted in a famous responce, all Baumrind really "proved" was the obvious...that any toxin sufficiently diluted down has no adverse effect. You can take strychnine without injury, if it's in sufficiently small parts per million. So to with "spanking," as youv'e tried again and again to exuse with similar arugments of "reduction of force." You don't stand a chance, Doan, even with your own feeble use of the fallacious debate ploy of "reducto absurdum." Only the studid, or psychologically crippled, would fail to see your mistake. Or had you forgotten and the criticism of Embry on your part for the number of subjects was just a "mistake?" You had no desire to decieve, right? Well? Doan Weasel boy, run run run. R R R R R R No answer. As usual. Let's pick a word...say "decieve" from my comments above. Let's see if you can divert everyone with a treatise on "decieve," Doan. R R R R R What will be your entire thesis contained in the subject field of your post, eh? R R R R R R |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: Kane said: Where did I say the Effect of CP? Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0? A question by definition cannot be a "lie." It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar! So neither of us "lied." But you did! My answer to your question? There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or then. I asked you a question. You just lied again! WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE? Unwanted effects of CP. And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED! Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible claims. Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity! Claims are not proofs. Just claims. Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake, possibly. So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-) Possibly. Did you miss that word in my response above? Odd. I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID? LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read. Yes? If you made the claim, it's WRONG. I could be, if a person read not further where they would find my comments on the study referring to it as "correlational." Did you fail to read further? And when did "wrong" get to be a lie? Is that a cultural thing, or a failure to comprehend English? You then denied making the claim; THAT IS A LIE - A BLATANT LIE! No, I denied that the meaning you gave to it by isolating one word, and combining it to another word, making a phrase that has a common link to another term "causation" was consistent with my meaning made abundantly clear in my use of "correlation." I did not lie. You had to connive to make it appear so. The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly little pointless ****. Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed. Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-) Doan Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families. The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in the study. Either you do not have the Embry study report, or you are misreading, or you are lying, only you know for sure. My copy has 33, 20 not baseline observed prior to the action phase of the study and 13 that were, but all included in the full study. The 20 have a start to finish charting that is significant even standing alone...since it shows a very steep change in behaviors of parent and child, just like the thirteen. Baseline for them would be 0 "behaviors" noted. That does not change the significance or removed them from the study, or Embry would have so indicated. He did not. That is a deliberate attempt to deceive. You meant you LIED! ;-) No, I meant you did, or you were mistaken and did not know that Embry's study was a total of 33. All 33 are listed, all are 33 are described in detail, family and child. All participated. Your author of the abstract failed to note that and stuck on the number 13, presuming something that was not so. That the 20 were excluded. They were not. You'd know that if you had the study, or had it and read it and understood it. OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick. Neither! I was right all along! No, you were wrong and still are. The sample size was the same for Baumrind as for Embry. Can't have it both ways, Doan. You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could not have been a mistake. LOL! Tell that to your mom! You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could not have been a mistake. In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected my error. Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"? Since when does a mistake require an apology. Simply acknowledging is sufficient. An apology is appropriate when damage has been done. Were you damaged? You're a little ****head. Nothing more. Oops! More adhom. Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-) Let's see, you used it for another dodge. 0:- Whenever you see an ad hom from me, you should ask yourself, 'is he setting me up to trick me into doing one of my dodges, rather than answer the charge?" And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you choose "liar." And you are STUPID! ;-) Really? Then you claim you are smart not to admit your mistakes and I'm "stupid" when I admit mine? Interesting ethical system you operate by if my question could be answered in the affirmative. Good for you. You are consistent. And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-) Notice I don't use your ad homs as an opportunity to dodge anything? Is that stupid of me? Doan Kane -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
These results look like pretty typical American statistical research.
Ken Johnson |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The logic of Kane Unwanted effects of CP
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:
[snipped] Garbage load of craps just for Kane to hide his LIES! ;-) LOL! Let's see that again. By eliminating the abused population, the ratio of the "never-spanked" jumped up to 38%??? You wanted people to buy that, Kane??? NO ONE STUPID ENOUGH to believe that! Please show how by so doing, eliminating what would have increased the percentage of spanked and slapped group, it would not have increased the "never." The abused would have included a high incidence, probably 100%, of children that had also been spanked and or slapped. That reduces the remaining sample size, thus multiplying the percentage of 'never.' One doesn't have to be smart or stupid to figure that out. Just aware of reality and of the processes and outcomes of sample culling. There's no magic to this, and I can't help but wonder how you do not know it already. Thus I assumed you lied. So let's cut all crap and address the point you make. Let's say we start with a sample size of a nice round number of 100 people. If 10% of this group is "never-spanked", we have 10 people. Right, Kane? That leaves us with 90 people in the "spanked" population. Are you with me so far? ;-) How many people do we have to remove from this "spanked" population of 90 in order the ratio of the "never-spanked" group to get to 38%? Let's see if 10% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/90, or approx. 11%. Right, Kane? Shall we continue? If 20% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/80, or 12.5%. If 50% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/50, or 20%. If 60% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/40, or 25%. If 75% of the sample size were "abused" and we remove them, the ratio of the "never-spanked" is now 10/25, or 40%. Using your logic and simple mathematic as I have demonstrated above, about 75% of the population in Canada were "abused"!!! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-) Doan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
Like Mark Twain said: lies, damn lies and statistics! ;-) Doan On 2 Feb 2006 wrote: These results look like pretty typical American statistical research. Ken Johnson |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP
Kane, This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation" and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and post a retraction. Doan On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote: http://stoptherod.net/research.htm Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a 1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of 10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult disorders we Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked disorder Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3% Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9% Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2% or addiction More than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7% one disorder * * More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions & antisocial behavior. Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for 1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems." http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805 http://stoptherod.net/research.htm Degree of............ Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme physical punishment Violent inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100% at San Quentin Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64% Delinquents High School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0% drop-outs College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0% freshmen Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0% Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California. http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking. http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80 percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the 10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52 http://nospank.net/males.htm |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Unwanted effects of CP
No, Ken, you see if you think that, according to Doan you are either
lying and or stupid. It's Canadian by the way, and nothing about it is unusual. They cleaned out a set of questionaires that had one characterist they need to remove to isolate another. Spanked and never spanked. That portion of the original sample could have have those children that might have been spanked and or slapped but had been either sexually or physically abused or both. Doan wants us to believe that age mattered, and that surely older people in the remaining reduced sample could not have a lower percentage of "never spanked/slapped" than people in the three younger samples. If one reads the entire study it's obvious there are variable uncontrolled for, that do not need to be since the goal is determine the correlations between between incidences of childhood spanking/slapping frequency and adult negative outcomes. Age had nothing to do with the study except to describe the remaining sample. The characteristics of the removed questionnaires would be nice to know, but it was not included. I just hope no one, not you, and certainly not I, would presume, as Doan has to, that the never spanked percentage of older people has to be smaller for some reason. Why? Because he thinks older people were spanked more? Well, the were abused more too and would have been removed for that reason. But then if you reduce the N size, you increase the percentage point of each remaining N in the sample. It's usually not terribly significant in like sample sizes. But it's obvious the N of the older would be LESS than the N of the younger because there was indeed more instances of shoving, pushing, grabbing and attacking children in the past. And it was more accepted 50-60 years ago, and became less so over time. Thus the steps in the age blocks that gradually increased the N of the younger, and of course then reduced the percentage of never spanked. The answer lies, of course, in so many older, as HE claimed, being spanked or slapped (with which I agree, of course) but also being weeded out because they were also abused. That reduces the sample of the older, thus increasing the percentage value of each individual remaining that was never spanked and or slapped. He'd rather talk though, as you will find, about whether I was, by the subject field content, claiming this was a causal study rather than a correlational one. He is claiming "cause" means "effect." Interesting logic, eh? No definition I know of isolates the term "effect" to being ONLY related to a cause, as in "Causation" It is only ONE of the related terms. "Effect" is a soft word, unlike "cause." It does not mean cause, only the outcome of cause, or the outcome of intent, or the outcome of some action. In fact what he does not realise smirk he's arguing is that the content of study are so powerfully correlational they approach evidence of a causal link that should be explored further. But it cannot be ethically, because any further study of a higher scientific order would likely require the destructive methods of hard, materials, or mechanical science. So far as I know it's been illegal because of ethical concerns to do such testing on humans. One would have to pick a group of newborns, of as close a gestation and hereditary factors, and reduce them into groups to apply various levels of spanking and slapping upon..from 0 to frequently N. And observe and record the reqsult while keeping all other variables reduced to constants. The latter is of course impossible with humans even in a closed evironment. It's hard enough with animal subjects. Unethical with humans. This seems to be pretty much the directly and type of argument presented again and again, -- which makes it pseudo scientific since it can't be outside the constraints of social science research. Does social science equal the physical sciences? Well, since the object is NOT to conclusively prove anything for all time in EITHER, then yes, of course it's the equal. We simply have to use what's left to make decisions and draw premise from each. Because neither is perfect and all knowing. Nor ever will be. I can smash a mans finger and ask him if it hurts. I will have very good "scientific" evidence that smashing people's fingers hurts, if I employ a large enough sample N. 0:- I can chart long term outcomes by watching the for a few weeks or years afterward for a longitudinal study. Much could be learned. Problem is I'll be arrested. And my notes confiscated for evidence before I can complete my work. OR, I can ask, as Soc Scientists do, of all you folks gathered here for the flumboiance test (means some other reason than finger smashing pain specifically) how many of you have had your finger smashed?" The REST OF YOU ARE EXCUSED. "Now tell me, you remaining, the circumstances, how hard you were hit, what you were hit with and how many times you were hit and did try to pull aw.....etc etc etc. .. " I have not adhered strictly to the scientific method of materials science, the physical sciences, even the biological sciences, BUT, if a have some info about the rate of lying about such things, I can factor that in. And I can come up with a meaningful presumption about "The Incedence of Long Term Negative Outcomes in Some That Have Their Fingers Smashed." I do not NEED to know their ages particularly, nor is it of particular concern, except older people, in a big enough sample, will probably have more instances of finger smashing. Irrelevant to my question. OUTCOMES. Am I boring anyone? Well, it's about this lying weasel that is now dodging this issue and doing his, "let's argue about the real meaning of what you said, after I take a moment to juice up what you said by pretending to connections that don't exist except in my mind and that of anyone I can mislead." Or, more properly labeled, Red Herring for dinner. Kane |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP
Doan wrote: Kane, This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation" and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and post a retraction. Doan Two questions: why would I have to use the word "correlation" in this post rather than in a following post explaining my meaning when challenged? The most you could claim is that I erred, and that only by insisting that my mean had to be " "cause and effect" thus a claim of "causality" being made. What comment did I make? Did I say anything? Did I say "Unwanted causal effects of CP?" Let's look at definitions: "ef·fect n. 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. 2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance. 3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect. 4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury. 5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow. 6. a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama. b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness. c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect. 7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect. 8. effects Movable belongings; goods. tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects 1. To bring into existence. 2. To produce as a result. 3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1. " You'll not it does NOT limit itself to YOUR definition of ONLY being linked to "causality." It isn't the cause. It is what follows the cause. The study look at correlation to determine an effect relationship. As in, " 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." You do understand the meaning of "or" do you not? In this case the agent would be spanking and slapping. There was no "causal" claim so I am not saying there was. The study did not say "Caused by," I didn't say caused by. And when asked I pointed out that it was a correlation. In fact YOU dropping the word 'cause' in when no such word was ever used shows your intent was to confuse the issue, or you failed to determine that "effect" does NOT mean cause, it means simply effect, of anything. As you are so fond of saying, correlation is not causation, and I've never disagreed, and in fact have used the same phrase myself, for the same reason. You are simply dying to keep everyones attention focuses on this Red Herring so they will be distracted from your demonstration of a major thinking error in presuming that a culled sample couldn't possibly contain a higher percentage of non spanked children than a lower percentage of yet another sub category. You failed to read the study in full or failed to understand it. Go back and read it. And, "cause and effect" is not "causal." One is, and one isn't. Nor did I include the word "cause" in my subject field. There can be an effect from correlation. All you have to have is enough of it. Too little, and arguments fail. A whole lot of it, and arguments become much stronger. That is why the caveat by the authors. They frequently point out the possibities being other than what one might assume. Those in the physical sciences, particularly biological ones, often do the same. It does not mean they are confessing their work is WRONG, stupid. Only that like ALL research it COULD be. And "there appears to be a linear association" is nothing more than pointing out a correlation. And a strong one at that. They are pointing to a possible "effect." Would you argue with them they are claiming "cause?" You are just dodging with your usual aging manure. Time to put it on the garden. 0:- On 30 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote: http://stoptherod.net/research.htm Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a 1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of 10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult disorders we Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked disorder Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3% Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9% Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2% or addiction More than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7% one disorder * * More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions & antisocial behavior. Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for 1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence and externalizing problems." http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805 http://stoptherod.net/research.htm Degree of............ Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme physical punishment Violent inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%................100% at San Quentin Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%.................64% Delinquents High School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%..................0% drop-outs College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%..................0% freshmen Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%..................0% Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr. Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California. http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking. http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80 percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the 10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52 http://nospank.net/males.htm |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is Kane a LIAR? Unwanted effects of CP
On 2 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: Kane, This is your original post. I've search every word in this post for the word "correlation". Please show me where you said "correlation" and not "effect" as you claimed. If you can show me where you CLEARLY stated that this is "correlation", I will PUBLICLY APOLIZE for calling you a liar. If not, I will DEMAND that you PUBLICLY APOLIZE and post a retraction. Doan Two questions: why would I have to use the word "correlation" in this post rather than in a following post explaining my meaning when challenged? The most you could claim is that I erred, and that only by insisting that my mean had to be " "cause and effect" thus a claim of "causality" being made. What comment did I make? Did I say anything? Did I say "Unwanted causal effects of CP?" Let's look at definitions: "ef·fect n. 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. 2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance. 3. A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect. 4. Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury. 5. The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow. 6. a. Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama. b. A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness. c. Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect. 7. The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect. 8. effects Movable belongings; goods. tr.v. ef·fect·ed, ef·fect·ing, ef·fects 1. To bring into existence. 2. To produce as a result. 3. To bring about. See Usage Note at affect1. " You'll not it does NOT limit itself to YOUR definition of ONLY being linked to "causality." It isn't the cause. It is what follows the cause. So which meaning does "effects of cp" falls into in this case? ;-) Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Games Chess CDs 2006-, and Boris Continuum Complete v4.0 , SideFX Houdini Master v8.0.474(Win/Linux), CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X3 v13.0, Adobe After Effects 7.0 PRO, Premiere Pro 2.0, Encore DVD v2.0, Audition v2.0, other 2006-Jan-25-to-2005-Aug-20 n | [email protected] | General | 1 | February 19th 06 05:19 PM |
Combination vaccines safe for children | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 50 | August 19th 05 06:43 PM |
FOAD Bigots | bobbie sellers | General | 190 | August 1st 05 10:07 AM |
QUACK DISINFORMATION ABOUT MERCURY | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 81 | March 17th 05 04:26 PM |
Are neuroleptics helpful to anyone? | Linda | Kids Health | 0 | October 5th 03 09:14 PM |