Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

Kane wrote
Still attempting to pretend to claim to rant
(thanks Greg) that you have won something?

The issue was resolved. The truth won.

You are an enemy of truth because you are a rabit zealot
and will never accept that your ""religion"" is wrong.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Still attempting to pretend to claim to rant
(thanks Greg) that you have won something?

The issue was resolved. The truth won.

Sorry. Wrong.

You are an enemy of truth because you are a rabit zealot
and will never accept that your ""religion"" is wrong.

Nope. I'll accept proof. It was not provided.

Nothing was provided by a series of easily exposed lies.

They continue.

As I knew they would, when I tired of requesting Ken to actually debate me.

I knew he lied. I knew he couldn't produce the evidence.

He didn't.

He preferred to argue, and that erroneously about the meaning of the
title of the article.

Do you consider stopping at the title of something rather than going
into the entire body of evidence provided, debate, Greg?

"lead to," can be a claim of a causal research report. "lead to," can
also mean the affirmation of a correlation.

The study was not, nor did it claim to be causal, as no reputable
scientific research would make such a claim.

Interestingly Dr Durrant of Manitoba University brought that very think
up and proved it about a so called researcher that attempted to claim
causal outcomes for research on spanking...that did not exist, nor could
he prove.

It was a gem of rebuttal of an asshole "scientist" who was affiliated at
the time with known pro spanking agenda people.

No, Greg, what we had was a blowhard not unlike you and Doan, that made
claims he could not back up, who was invited to conduct a debate with me
in a setting of a more level playing field. And he ran, as well he
should, because he KNEW he could not produce.

This is, if you've checked, an historical fact about Mr. Pangborn.

That is how he proceeds.

He's questioned about his credentials, as he posts them, and he dodges.

He claims others attack him and he's CAUGHT at doing a Black Flag
operation, and he lamely lies about it.

He's a fit butt buddy for you and Doan though.

No matter what you are caught at you lamely lie your way out of it, and
run.

And you try to cover for each other as I just caught you doing, instead
of dealing with the issue under discussion in my comment.

0:-}

"Doan" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision
you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn
right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.

In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening
your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to
the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?

Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him
right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see
that
as a main theme in your life).

I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your
own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your
sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers
opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not
the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else
at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad
thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)


God Kane argues like a little girl!

"0:-" wrote in message
news:5YmdnR7jaZNB6i_YnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)

Nope.

YEP!!!!

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field leveling
I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

You eman I refuse to play in YOUR sandbox by YOUR rules. I said
"ROBERTS RULES" RIGHT HERE RIGHT now and you ****ed all over yourself
RUNNING like scared little GYRL! Coward? The onee that NEEDS all sorts of
SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Nowjere near anythign recognized as standard debate.

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.


Sure I did from its own content SEVERAL TIMES. First it is an OPINION
SURVEY!

Not only did I kick your ass all over the block on that I set forth WHAT
kind of "study" WOULD satisfy the "PROOF" required. Even your pal Ron has to
admit that there is NO such proof!

It's simple Kane.. Again I will state it for the 233rd time.

You use the scientific method. You put together AT LEAST 3 groups of
children.

1. A group of children KNOWN to have been spanked.

2. A group of children KNOWN to have NEVER been spanked.

3. A control group where you don't know if they have or not.

Ideally you do this as a "double blind" where the people doing the
assessments don't know who is who or necessarily what is being tested for.
And the children don't know why they are being tested.

You administer EXISTING psychological instruments that test for
aggression. You then do a statistical analysis of where the kids fall.

ON ONE OTHER NOTE KANE THE MAGNIFICENT are you aware that several
studies of the above kind of design have shown that children known NOT to
have been molested give the highest rates of positive responses (White
scales) and molested children the LOWEST?

Ron at least honesty ADMITS there is NO "study" that supports your
IDIOTIC claims. The site you use is a SURVEY! And even IT when you read it
contraindicated the conclusions its authors came to. It's the old **** of
finding what you are looking for and ignoring ALL the signs that you are NOT
in Tippirary!

The article make a statement IN CAUSALITY! Even if it were just
"correlation" which you STUPIDLY claim, it fails that as well. It fails
right at the point where they include data that says that there is LESS
AGGRESSION where spanking is more culturally accepted than in places where
it isn't! That's 50 torpedoes in the side of your row boat Kane. Any ONE of
which would sink a battleship.

I have ZERO hope you can understand it. You approach science the way
Cops and Social Workers ALWAYS do. It all just sails straight over your pin
heads!

You can claim that "LEADS TO" isn't a statement in causality all you
want. The more you do the stupider you make yourself appear!

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:5YmdnR7jaZNB6i_YnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)
Nope.

YEP!!!!

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field leveling
I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

You eman I refuse to play in YOUR sandbox by YOUR rules. I said
"ROBERTS RULES" RIGHT HERE RIGHT now and you ****ed all over yourself
RUNNING like scared little GYRL! Coward? The onee that NEEDS all sorts of
SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Nowjere near anythign recognized as standard debate.

You refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field
leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

It's a little late now. And I told you I won't meet you in ascps, but
where I posted the article originally, aps.

You had a choice, and you took it. I'm perfectly comfortable with your
choice. It indicated your unwillingness to debate in aps.

I choose not to debate this issue in ascps.

One of us lacks the evidence claimed, and that is why he refused and
ran. And that's not me.

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.


Sure I did from its own content SEVERAL TIMES.

Please don't lie. You attempted and failed by using false logic,
claiming meaning for words not in evidence to anyone that understands
the English language.

And you did not do anything about that proof "several times." It was
once. And simply repeating the same inept and false illogical misuse of
words.

"Lead to," is most definitely not a claim of causality. It refers to a
chronology...as in something occurred, then something else occurs, a
correlation is inferred.

The article did not offer any argument from research that it was indeed
causally proven. That was your invention.

First it is an OPINION
SURVEY!

It is a survey. It is not an opinion survey in full. Opinions were asked
for as a part, likely a small part, of a question and answer model that
asked about actual behaviors by parents in the countries visited.

As to your yelling....I did not pretend it was anything but a survey. If
do not accept survey evidence in an argument about aggression in
children who are spanking, and it holding true across cultures, what
would you accept?

What kind of research please?

Not only did I kick your ass all over the block

Now now, don't lie. You in fact failed to prove your point. And you lied
to try at that.

on that I set forth WHAT
kind of "study" WOULD satisfy the "PROOF" required.

You did? I missed that. What kind of study did you say you'd accept the
premise of spanking leading to aggression in children?

It shouldn't be hard to post an URL pointing to your post where you did
that.

Even your pal Ron has to
admit that there is NO such proof!

I'm afraid he can't do that. He has no dog in this fight. Or so he claims.

Has he defended my claim via the article?

That would be very much against his stated aim of not debating the issue
at all.

It's simple Kane.. Again I will state it for the 233rd time.

You wouldn't be exaggerating for effect, now would you?

You use the scientific method. You put together AT LEAST 3 groups of
children

There were more than that.

1. A group of children KNOWN to have been spanked.

Some were spanked in the samples. The parent reported that.

2. A group of children KNOWN to have NEVER been spanked.

It was not a claim that unspanked children don't become aggressive. That
claim was not made.

It was that children that are spanked, in various cultures, with various
values concerning the use of CP, showed more aggression, but all that
were spanked did show aggression.

3. A control group where you don't know if they have or not.

What would you be looking for?

Ideally you do this as a "double blind" where the people doing the
assessments don't know who is who or necessarily what is being tested for.

You are describing an observational study. They have been done. They
showed more aggression in spanked children based on how much they were
spanked. Unspanked children, as it turned out, were not part of the study.

And the children don't know why they are being tested.

That seems a strange requirement. It would be obvious they wouldn't
know. No reason to tell them even if they asked.

Do you think the children in the survey were told why they were being
interviewed?

You administer EXISTING psychological instruments that test for
aggression. You then do a statistical analysis of where the kids fall.

And this would produce a cause based outcome how?

ON ONE OTHER NOTE KANE THE MAGNIFICENT

Must you stomp our fat little foot like a child and destroy your
credibility right out of th chute?

are you aware that several
studies of the above kind of design

Can you cite them with a link please. I've found myself questioning your
credibility for some reason. Possibly because you do a lot of childish
screaming, lying, and falsely accusing as part of your arguments.

Cite please. Several, please. Just as you claim.

have shown that children known NOT to
have been molested give the highest rates of positive responses (White
scales) and molested children the LOWEST?

Molested?

If you mean spanked, then you are claiming that those who have not been
give the lowest positive response rate.

And those that have been spanked give the highest positive behavior
response rate. I presume.

What are "White Scales" please?

And please clarify if you mean sexually molested or not. If so your
claim would turn logic upside down. And ethics even more topsyturvey.

I don't want to see a child that has been molested showing more positive
behaviors than those that have not. Unless of course it's true that
children just love being sexually molested. Is that your point?


Ron at least honesty ADMITS there is NO "study" that supports your
IDIOTIC claims.

I didn't take that from his statement. You must be reading one I missed.
Can you point me to it so I might read it for myself?

The site you use is a SURVEY!

The Cite I used is indeed that, and I certainly did not conceal that.

You have not shown that to be a problem for the outcomes they claim. You
have created a strawman...that is you are looking at studies that try to
claim MORE than that. And trying to claim they fail...and by the way,
you are lying. They do not fail.

And even IT when you read it
contraindicated the conclusions its authors came to.

Really? What did they find that indicated a conclusion counter to their
claims?

It's the old **** of
finding what you are looking for and ignoring ALL the signs that you are NOT
in Tippirary!

I'm afraid it's the old shuffle, smoke, mirrors, and bull**** pilling on
your part, Ken. Same as you've done in group after group.

What signs did the researchers miss, Ken?

The article make a statement IN CAUSALITY!

Nope. No such thing was claimed.

Even if it were just
"correlation" which you STUPIDLY claim, it fails that as well.

In what way?

It fails
right at the point where they include data that says that there is LESS
AGGRESSION where spanking is more culturally accepted than in places where
it isn't!

No, that was not the point. That, in fact, is something long known and
accepted in studies of those cultures. No claim of falsity was attempted.

What the point was was simple enough, and you lie by refusing to bring
it into the claim you are making. A contextual abortion lie, Ken. Old
stuff for you. And a couple of other posters here.

The point was that despite that comparison, in ALL cultures, accepting
or not, children who were spanked exhibited more aggression than those
that weren't or were spanked less.

That's 50 torpedoes in the side of your row boat Kane. Any ONE of
which would sink a battleship.

None hit.

I was not where you claim I was.

Neither I, nor the study, have claimed that spanking produces more
aggression in societies where spanking is accepted. Only that across
cultures all children who are spanking more exhibit more aggression than
those not spanked or spanked less.

I have ZERO hope you can understand it.

I understand that you do not understand, or that you do, and you
construct an elaborate argument on sand that is washed away by the wake
of your own poorly aimed torpedoes?

How do you like my metaphor?

You approach science the way
Cops and Social Workers ALWAYS do.

I don't have enough knowledge of either to argue that one way or another.

I simply know the way I approach. I don't attempt to assign meanings to
words that are not in evidence. No attempt to claim causal relationship
was mentioned in the article, Ken.

It all just sails straight over your pin
heads!

Cops and social workers, along with myself, are pin heads?

Is that a correlation?

0;-

You can claim that "LEADS TO" isn't a statement in causality all you
want.

I do seem to keep repeating myself, in response to you and Doan
insisting on a false logic.

The more you do the stupider you make yourself appear!

I guess I'll just have to sit here looking stupid while you demonstrate
you are stupid.

You have expressed and opinion about word usage that has no basis in fact.

At the best take on it, "leads to" could mean casual.

But on closer examination it is a chronology statement and thereby a
known correlation element. An event takes place. Another takes place
afterward. Because of the nature of the events it is inferred that one
may be correlated to the other in a meaningful way and conclusions
drawn. As one event leads to another we suspect is an outcome.

A conclusion need not include 'cause' as it foundation.

The old "nearly all criminals have drunk milk as a child so milk
drinking leads to a life of crime" argument.

It's invalid, obviously causally, and of course by correlation as well,
because it's silly. Crime following milk drinking has no rational
connection.

On the other hand certain events in the criminal's history common to
most criminals deserves much more consideration because they are not
silly. Take harsh childhood discipline in the history of violent
criminals, for instance.

The study in question did not question what you claim it questioned.
It's intent was to report what was found regarding cross-cultural
similarity in the increase in aggression in all spanked children, the
more spanking the more aggression regardless of the level of acceptance
of CP by those cultures.

That was the point, and the first such survey on such a wide from across
cultures.

You have stomped your little foot. You have used ad hom. You have ranted
the same arguments that failed you before.

You have called on false logic and diversion with smoke and mirrors, and
still, Ken, you have not proven the study is anything less than it
claimed to be...a finding of more aggression in children regardless of
the acceptance of CP in their cultures.

If they did NOT find that, in fact, then you have an argument. What
would indicate to you they did not find what they claimed?

And note, despite your lies to the contrary, and despite your endless
droan of ad hom, I am here where you invited me, and open to debate.

Will you now engage anyone that shows up to support you, by argument or
introducing chaff in the form of various attacks on my personally?

Or will you conduct yourself like a rationale and honorable person and
confine your discussion to the two of us?

I doubt you can. We will see.

I am awaiting your responses to the challenges I've presented.

You claimed some sources for proof of your claims, as odd as they were
(about "molestation" in an argument about spanking effects? Weird) and
I'd like to see them.

I'd also like to see that proof for the subject you keep avoiding...the
one about you knowing of many sources of scientific evidence (Use your
model of three groups of children..that would be nice) that shows
sociopathy in behavior caused by lack of them being spanked.

In fact, since you are so close to impasse on this International survey
report, it might be a good time to move to what I've been asking for for
about a week now.

Thanks.

(didn't think I'd argue with you here, eh? You really ARE stupid)

Kane

Top Post:

Kane - 12
Kenny - 0

Game over

Ron


"0:-" wrote in message
...
krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:5YmdnR7jaZNB6i_YnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive.
My only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have
DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)
Nope.

YEP!!!!

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field
leveling I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly
fashion.

You eman I refuse to play in YOUR sandbox by YOUR rules. I said
"ROBERTS RULES" RIGHT HERE RIGHT now and you ****ed all over yourself
RUNNING like scared little GYRL! Coward? The onee that NEEDS all sorts
of SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Nowjere near anythign recognized as standard
debate.

You refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field leveling
I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

It's a little late now. And I told you I won't meet you in ascps, but
where I posted the article originally, aps.

You had a choice, and you took it. I'm perfectly comfortable with your
choice. It indicated your unwillingness to debate in aps.

I choose not to debate this issue in ascps.

One of us lacks the evidence claimed, and that is why he refused and ran.
And that's not me.

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.


Sure I did from its own content SEVERAL TIMES.

Please don't lie. You attempted and failed by using false logic, claiming
meaning for words not in evidence to anyone that understands the English
language.

And you did not do anything about that proof "several times." It was once.
And simply repeating the same inept and false illogical misuse of words.

"Lead to," is most definitely not a claim of causality. It refers to a
chronology...as in something occurred, then something else occurs, a
correlation is inferred.

The article did not offer any argument from research that it was indeed
causally proven. That was your invention.

First it is an OPINION
SURVEY!

It is a survey. It is not an opinion survey in full. Opinions were asked
for as a part, likely a small part, of a question and answer model that
asked about actual behaviors by parents in the countries visited.

As to your yelling....I did not pretend it was anything but a survey. If
do not accept survey evidence in an argument about aggression in children
who are spanking, and it holding true across cultures, what would you
accept?

What kind of research please?

Not only did I kick your ass all over the block

Now now, don't lie. You in fact failed to prove your point. And you lied
to try at that.

on that I set forth WHAT
kind of "study" WOULD satisfy the "PROOF" required.

You did? I missed that. What kind of study did you say you'd accept the
premise of spanking leading to aggression in children?

It shouldn't be hard to post an URL pointing to your post where you did
that.

Even your pal Ron has to
admit that there is NO such proof!

I'm afraid he can't do that. He has no dog in this fight. Or so he claims.

Has he defended my claim via the article?

That would be very much against his stated aim of not debating the issue
at all.

It's simple Kane.. Again I will state it for the 233rd time.

You wouldn't be exaggerating for effect, now would you?

You use the scientific method. You put together AT LEAST 3 groups of
children

There were more than that.

1. A group of children KNOWN to have been spanked.

Some were spanked in the samples. The parent reported that.

2. A group of children KNOWN to have NEVER been spanked.

It was not a claim that unspanked children don't become aggressive. That
claim was not made.

It was that children that are spanked, in various cultures, with various
values concerning the use of CP, showed more aggression, but all that were
spanked did show aggression.

3. A control group where you don't know if they have or not.

What would you be looking for?

Ideally you do this as a "double blind" where the people doing the
assessments don't know who is who or necessarily what is being tested
for.

You are describing an observational study. They have been done. They
showed more aggression in spanked children based on how much they were
spanked. Unspanked children, as it turned out, were not part of the study.

And the children don't know why they are being tested.

That seems a strange requirement. It would be obvious they wouldn't know.
No reason to tell them even if they asked.

Do you think the children in the survey were told why they were being
interviewed?

You administer EXISTING psychological instruments that test for
aggression. You then do a statistical analysis of where the kids fall.

And this would produce a cause based outcome how?

ON ONE OTHER NOTE KANE THE MAGNIFICENT

Must you stomp our fat little foot like a child and destroy your
credibility right out of th chute?

are you aware that several studies of the above kind of design

Can you cite them with a link please. I've found myself questioning your
credibility for some reason. Possibly because you do a lot of childish
screaming, lying, and falsely accusing as part of your arguments.

Cite please. Several, please. Just as you claim.

have shown that children known NOT to have been molested give the highest
rates of positive responses (White scales) and molested children the
LOWEST?

Molested?

If you mean spanked, then you are claiming that those who have not been
give the lowest positive response rate.

And those that have been spanked give the highest positive behavior
response rate. I presume.

What are "White Scales" please?

And please clarify if you mean sexually molested or not. If so your claim
would turn logic upside down. And ethics even more topsyturvey.

I don't want to see a child that has been molested showing more positive
behaviors than those that have not. Unless of course it's true that
children just love being sexually molested. Is that your point?


Ron at least honesty ADMITS there is NO "study" that supports your
IDIOTIC claims.

I didn't take that from his statement. You must be reading one I missed.
Can you point me to it so I might read it for myself?

The site you use is a SURVEY!

The Cite I used is indeed that, and I certainly did not conceal that.

You have not shown that to be a problem for the outcomes they claim. You
have created a strawman...that is you are looking at studies that try to
claim MORE than that. And trying to claim they fail...and by the way, you
are lying. They do not fail.

And even IT when you read it
contraindicated the conclusions its authors came to.

Really? What did they find that indicated a conclusion counter to their
claims?

It's the old **** of finding what you are looking for and ignoring ALL
the signs that you are NOT in Tippirary!

I'm afraid it's the old shuffle, smoke, mirrors, and bull**** pilling on
your part, Ken. Same as you've done in group after group.

What signs did the researchers miss, Ken?

The article make a statement IN CAUSALITY!

Nope. No such thing was claimed.

Even if it were just
"correlation" which you STUPIDLY claim, it fails that as well.

In what way?

It fails
right at the point where they include data that says that there is LESS
AGGRESSION where spanking is more culturally accepted than in places
where it isn't!

No, that was not the point. That, in fact, is something long known and
accepted in studies of those cultures. No claim of falsity was attempted.

What the point was was simple enough, and you lie by refusing to bring it
into the claim you are making. A contextual abortion lie, Ken. Old stuff
for you. And a couple of other posters here.

The point was that despite that comparison, in ALL cultures, accepting or
not, children who were spanked exhibited more aggression than those that
weren't or were spanked less.

That's 50 torpedoes in the side of your row boat Kane. Any ONE of
which would sink a battleship.

None hit.

I was not where you claim I was.

Neither I, nor the study, have claimed that spanking produces more
aggression in societies where spanking is accepted. Only that across
cultures all children who are spanking more exhibit more aggression than
those not spanked or spanked less.

I have ZERO hope you can understand it.

I understand that you do not understand, or that you do, and you construct
an elaborate argument on sand that is washed away by the wake of your own
poorly aimed torpedoes?

How do you like my metaphor?

You approach science the way Cops and Social Workers ALWAYS do.

I don't have enough knowledge of either to argue that one way or another.

I simply know the way I approach. I don't attempt to assign meanings to
words that are not in evidence. No attempt to claim causal relationship
was mentioned in the article, Ken.

It all just sails straight over your pin heads!

Cops and social workers, along with myself, are pin heads?

Is that a correlation?

0;-

You can claim that "LEADS TO" isn't a statement in causality all you
want.

I do seem to keep repeating myself, in response to you and Doan insisting
on a false logic.

The more you do the stupider you make yourself appear!

I guess I'll just have to sit here looking stupid while you demonstrate
you are stupid.

You have expressed and opinion about word usage that has no basis in fact.

At the best take on it, "leads to" could mean casual.

But on closer examination it is a chronology statement and thereby a known
correlation element. An event takes place. Another takes place afterward.
Because of the nature of the events it is inferred that one may be
correlated to the other in a meaningful way and conclusions drawn. As one
event leads to another we suspect is an outcome.

A conclusion need not include 'cause' as it foundation.

The old "nearly all criminals have drunk milk as a child so milk drinking
leads to a life of crime" argument.

It's invalid, obviously causally, and of course by correlation as well,
because it's silly. Crime following milk drinking has no rational
connection.

On the other hand certain events in the criminal's history common to most
criminals deserves much more consideration because they are not silly.
Take harsh childhood discipline in the history of violent criminals, for
instance.

The study in question did not question what you claim it questioned. It's
intent was to report what was found regarding cross-cultural similarity in
the increase in aggression in all spanked children, the more spanking the
more aggression regardless of the level of acceptance of CP by those
cultures.

That was the point, and the first such survey on such a wide from across
cultures.

You have stomped your little foot. You have used ad hom. You have ranted
the same arguments that failed you before.

You have called on false logic and diversion with smoke and mirrors, and
still, Ken, you have not proven the study is anything less than it claimed
to be...a finding of more aggression in children regardless of the
acceptance of CP in their cultures.

If they did NOT find that, in fact, then you have an argument. What would
indicate to you they did not find what they claimed?

And note, despite your lies to the contrary, and despite your endless
droan of ad hom, I am here where you invited me, and open to debate.

Will you now engage anyone that shows up to support you, by argument or
introducing chaff in the form of various attacks on my personally?

Or will you conduct yourself like a rationale and honorable person and
confine your discussion to the two of us?

I doubt you can. We will see.

I am awaiting your responses to the challenges I've presented.

You claimed some sources for proof of your claims, as odd as they were
(about "molestation" in an argument about spanking effects? Weird) and I'd
like to see them.

I'd also like to see that proof for the subject you keep avoiding...the
one about you knowing of many sources of scientific evidence (Use your
model of three groups of children..that would be nice) that shows
sociopathy in behavior caused by lack of them being spanked.

In fact, since you are so close to impasse on this International survey
report, it might be a good time to move to what I've been asking for for
about a week now.

Thanks.

(didn't think I'd argue with you here, eh? You really ARE stupid)

Kane

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Ron wrote:

Top Post:

Kane - 12
Kenny - 0

Game over

Ron


I don't get it, Ron. Please explain.

Doan

krp wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...

Life is made up of consequences kenny. Good and bad. Every decision
you
make in life, tea or coffee, hot or cold cereal, turn left or turn
right,
has a consequence. Every single decision kenny.
In this case you had a decision to make, abide by the rules that kane
wished or not. No one was twisting your arm, no one was threatening
your
life, family, or home town, the only consequences that there were to
the
decision was either he would debate you or he wouldn't. Simple, 'eh?
Nobody except Moore, but that's beside the point. I'll debate him
right
here, right now.

Obviously you didn't want to have to deal with rules (somehow I see
that
as a main theme in your life).
I don't mind Rules Ron. Roberts has those. You and your buddy want your
own
rules where YOU don't have to document your position and where your
sources
are unassailable.

The simple outline of the history of this issue.

The message was posted that contained the causal statement that "Spanking
leads to aggression" the source quoted was "Science Daily"
the article in question was self described as a "survey of mothers
opinions"

I said that the article is little more than an opinion piece and fails to
support causation.

Kane came in insisting that spanking does cause aggression.

I state that the cited article fails to support that.

Kane insists it does and that there are other studies.

I state that I don't find that article is scientifically valid to support
the claim that spanking causes aggression in children.

IN ADDITION I have recently added that the article itself NEGATES that
statement in that it shows that in cultures where spanking is culturally
accepted that aggression is lower than in places where spanking is not
the
cultural norm. Meaning for educated readers that there is something else
at
play here than spanking causing aggression. The article also fails to
document why that that specific aggression would necessarily be a bad
thing.

Then Kane insisted we go off to another place, who can participate what
other rules apply etc.

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)


God Kane argues like a little girl!

Naw, little girls too young for intellectual productivity answer by
claiming:

"The statement that X "LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane
you stupid HUMP!"

And with nasty snotty childish name calling and failing to look up some
proof that they are correct.

How'd you like 10,000 or so results for "X LEADS TO Y" and the word
"correlation?"

Ron warned you and you are too full of yourself to listen to anyone by
your own echo in your empty little head.

Can I expect a few "DIE! DIE!" from you soon?

0:-

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:5YmdnR7jaZNB6i_YnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@scnresearch. com...

I insist we debate right here and Roberts rules apply. He made the
positive
claim the ball is in HIS court and STAYS there until he can prove his
claim.

You already admit he can't. Really, Ron, GAME OVER.

I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)
Nope.

YEP!!!!

He refused to debate under the same kind of simple playing field leveling
I asked of you and your ran from in your usual cowardly fashion.

You eman I refuse to play in YOUR sandbox by YOUR rules. I said
"ROBERTS RULES" RIGHT HERE RIGHT now and you ****ed all over yourself
RUNNING like scared little GYRL! Coward? The onee that NEEDS all sorts of
SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Nowjere near anythign recognized as standard debate.

So let me see now. Two of us made challenges to debate by rules.

One of us did it first. The other did it second to run from the first.

Nothing complicated in that.

Do I need to mention I made the first invitation and you did our
bull**** petulant, and desperate refusal by demanding I go by your rules?


And that your rules are patently to create a playing field tilted in
your favor?

Mine are not, either way.

And he did not provide any proof of my source failing.


Sure I did from its own content SEVERAL TIMES. First it is an OPINION
SURVEY!

I won't bother to refute again what I did in a prior post to this
childish ranting of yours, Ken. I think you should be, if you have a
conscience, embarrassed enough by now to write up a letter and bomb me
with it.

Or wouldn't you do such a thing?

Say, I would have sworn there was another newsgroup in the addy fields.

It must have just slipped away while we weren't watching. Dern.

Well, I guess when I catch it I'll just have to put it back, to be
honorable and accountable to all readers of our thread...since you wish
to have it open to all for our Debate. 0:-}

Yah know, I captured recaptured the that escaped little rascal on the
morning 17th, and darned if it didn't escape right after Greg reproduced
it correctly...and right at your post of the same day.

I think someone is out to get you, Don't you Ken? Imagine pulling such a
relevant newsgroup from your post without your permission.

And Ken, someone is picking you by removing that group over and over
again, while pretty much leaving it when I put it back, until your next
post.

You'd have given notice had you done it yourself, of course. 0:-

Do you, Ken, suffer from testosterone poisoning? You seem unable to face
it when you've been whipped and resort to the oddest of childish, in
fact, unmanly antics.

Real men don't lie, cheat, and letter bomb.

Or am I mistaken and you haven't done any of those?

Well, I guess I'm entitled to my opinion.

0:-




Not only did I kick your ass all over the block on that I set forth WHAT
kind of "study" WOULD satisfy the "PROOF" required. Even your pal Ron has to
admit that there is NO such proof!

It's simple Kane.. Again I will state it for the 233rd time.

You use the scientific method. You put together AT LEAST 3 groups of
children.

1. A group of children KNOWN to have been spanked.

2. A group of children KNOWN to have NEVER been spanked.

3. A control group where you don't know if they have or not.

Ideally you do this as a "double blind" where the people doing the
assessments don't know who is who or necessarily what is being tested for.
And the children don't know why they are being tested.

You administer EXISTING psychological instruments that test for
aggression. You then do a statistical analysis of where the kids fall.

ON ONE OTHER NOTE KANE THE MAGNIFICENT are you aware that several
studies of the above kind of design have shown that children known NOT to
have been molested give the highest rates of positive responses (White
scales) and molested children the LOWEST?

Ron at least honesty ADMITS there is NO "study" that supports your
IDIOTIC claims. The site you use is a SURVEY! And even IT when you read it
contraindicated the conclusions its authors came to. It's the old **** of
finding what you are looking for and ignoring ALL the signs that you are NOT
in Tippirary!

The article make a statement IN CAUSALITY! Even if it were just
"correlation" which you STUPIDLY claim, it fails that as well. It fails
right at the point where they include data that says that there is LESS
AGGRESSION where spanking is more culturally accepted than in places where
it isn't! That's 50 torpedoes in the side of your row boat Kane. Any ONE of
which would sink a battleship.

I have ZERO hope you can understand it. You approach science the way
Cops and Social Workers ALWAYS do. It all just sails straight over your pin
heads!

You can claim that "LEADS TO" isn't a statement in causality all you
want. The more you do the stupider you make yourself appear!

krp wrote:
....snip.... prior responded to....


I have NO burden to prove spanking doesn't make children aggressive. My
only
burden was to show why his source fails to carry the weight. I have DONE
THAT!

Game. Set. And match! ;-)


God Kane argues like a little girl!

So tell us, little Kendra, how was it to learn a new lesson today, about
someone making a false claim, by way of not researching it first, that:
"The article make a statement IN CAUSALITY!" and "The statement that X
"LEADS TO" Y IS a statement in causality Kane you stupid HUMP!"

You see, Little Kendra, while it's possible "The statement that X
"LEADS TO" Y" IS a statement of causality," Kane you stupid HUMP!" is
not true and nice Mr. Kane is not a hump and showed us all that it can
and does also appear in many places used to describe correlation
relationships.

I know you didn't really mean to be snotty and call people names. Good
little girls such as you wouldn't really hurt people's feelings on purpose.

You may have TWO cookies for being such a good little Fairy Princess and
sitting through the lesson today.

Why, yes indeed, I would like a bit of sugar in my tea, thank you.

0;-]