What has hapenned to this group?

Ignoranus Kane0 said:
"The confusion may start here. I like confusion. It sifts the bull****
artists that do NOT do adequate research, before they start accusing
other of it. R R R R"

LOL!

Doan


On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Doan wrote:

LOL! Kane said:
"They aren't the only society that has thrived without battering
children and calling it their equivalent of "spanking.""

Doan

On 15 Jan 2006, 0;- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Kane:
"It's the non-violent gentle nature of their parenting with a fine tuned
application of developmentally approriate teaching."

Doan:
So spanking is now part of a "non-violent gentle nature"???

Kane:
"It was in this instance. It has been in research provided by you in the
past."

Don't you just love the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

Doan


On 15 Jan 2006, 0;- wrote:

goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good an idea afterall.

goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good an idea afterall.

beccafromlalaland wrote:
Kane Wrote:

Common to those such as the Holocaust Deniers, Creationists,
Intelligent Designers, etc.

They have an empty claim with no way to defend it factually so they
attack bits and pieces of the opponents position, rather than the
whole
of it. Same ol' same ol.


Kane


I'm not going to pick a fight over this...but just for future
reference,

If you are not going to "pick a fight" why do you go on to put forward
your argument?

it's a bit offensive to lump Holocaust Deniers,
Creationists, and those who believe in Intelligent Design together.

Most of us find it "a bit offensive" to have our beliefs challenged.

I draw your attention to the fact I did not lump them together.
Whatever differences there are between them I certainly would not deny.
They are not even making the claims totally.

What I was pointing out was simply that they use the same argument
methods.

I believe the Story of Creation as told in Genesis, I need no other
proof than what I know in my heart.

Then that will be the standard you use for that issue.

I'm not willing to allow a similar standard to be used for the issue of
spanking. Since we aren't having a debate about creation and Genesis
your beliefs are not in question.

Many of those that claim spanking works just "believe" it works based
on what they feel in their heart, ignoring other information.

If you wish to extend to those that wish to use and defend the use of
CP that same working model of reality you have for Creation then that
is up to you.

I do not.

I don't try to disprove science as
I don't understand much anyway.

Science isn't about proof and disproof. It's about a constant condition
of learning and aquiring new information. Science never has actually
"proven" anything they do not anticipate yet more information that
moves their knowledge forward. (Or occasionally back..smile)

I just hold to the belief that there is
a lot we don't know about the world yet, questions still aren't
answered, so no one can say right or wrong how the world came to be or
how old it is etc etc.

The question here isn't evolution vs creationism. And science most
certainly does NOT claim that their is or will be any final answer to
those questions. It's up to each camp to provide proofs of their
claims. And when one challenges the other, for the challenged to answer
the questions, rather than simply challenge back.

The same rules must apply, as far as I'm concerned, to the question of
the use of corporal punishment issues.

The spanking enthusiasts have never answered, other than to say "yet
but," the fundamental questions of the risks, the negative outcomes
that are percieved being worth the supposed and unproven benefits they
"just know in their hearts" are true.

I also Know the Holocaust really happened. I've met a survivor,
touched his tatoo, seen the pictures and film. My Grandparents walked
through Dachow. It happened.

The Denier/Revisionist camp would argue into the ground on those
points. They claim Dachau was a holding camp and not an extermination
center. I believe they are correct. But other concentration camps were
in fact extremination centers based on hard evidence from both medical
and chemical forensics and the massive clear papertrail the germans
left in their wake.

The tattoo alone is not proof anyone was exterminated, only that they
were tattooed for identification purposes.

Of course their argument fails massively when one points out there are
roughly six million missing jews from that period. A mass of people
that great would have produced, if they were still living, millions
upon millions of 'reunions.' It did not.

Analysis of the photographic evidence stands up against the claim they
were faked. Those were in fact dead bodies by the thousands per photo
session.


And the pics of german soldiers, guards, shooting prisoners on fields
packed with piled up bodies were not faked.

--
beccafromlalaland

But we come back to the question of spanking. If it works, as is the
claim, no reputable duplicatible research has ever produced that.

The only answer the opposition provides is a challenge to prove
non-spanking works.

And of course they are as aware as I am that the demand to provide it
is not ethically possible because we cannot set up an arbitrary
"spanking" schedule experiment. All information has to be gathered
anecdotally. Polls and surveys are very much that. Polls most
especially show nothing but that some people were interested in
responding.

And the responders had every reason to be a group selected by the poll
question, which of course would make them have common cause to answer.

Surveys have a similar problem. The nature of the question asked,
including the order, tends to drive the outcome in a particular
direction.

For instance, if I set a person down, as part of a larger study, and
have her answer questions and early in the list of those is "the
spanking" question, "How did your parents discipline you?" I have
pretty much given the game away.

For you see the following questions have to be about the outcomes.

So that question must not be asked until the very end or it influences
the participant.

They will hedge all other questions according to what they think they
should answer to the spanking question. And it can be phrased to make
spanking appear to be the preferred choice.

No, the object of surveying on a spanking issue is this: "What outcomes
can be correlated with spanking?"

Hence all questions preceeding the spanking question must be quality of
life questions. Income, education, mental health, health,
relationships, happiness v unhappiness ratings, etc.

Then the spanking question.

But few such surveys exist I would suspect. I'd need access to a major
university library shelves on this subject, or the money to pay for
them to be downloaded. And then I don't know if I'd even find them.

I might run a search online again sometime to see if I can either
improve my abilities to search, or to see if something new has come up
since last I tried.

In the final analysis for me, and using your criteria of personal
experience and belief let me offer this to you.

I have had a very long career related in a number of ways to behavior
study. Both animal and human. I was for the first years, nearly 20 of
them, of my working life, a professional horse trainer, teacher, and
competitor. I studied successful methods vs unsuccessful for many of
those years. And in the end every system I looked at that failed had a
punishment component, and every system that worked ... winning a race,
field competition over jumps and cross country, ease of handling....all
had either fewer punishment components or non at all.

You can guess which way I went.

Early in that career I had two children. And became keenly interested
in child rearing and by both recall and study I looked at parenting
practices. I had the same criteria in mind.

Who 'won' ultimately in quality of life? Sure some spanked individuals
did, but that would be expected in a society where it's estimated over
90% of children are spanked.

But was more startling to me and more than I expected, unspanked
children and especially those treated respectfully and not humiliated
in any way were far ahead of the pack. A joy to be with, easily self
controlled. Cooperative yet independent. Assertive rather than
aggressive.

Guess which parenting methods I was drawn to.

Later, after my children were grown, being keenly aware that there was
another end to this sectrum, where children were subjected to harsh
parenting methods, including abuse and neglect, I went back to college
and studied that.

And later taught and worked in the field of mental health, juvenile
mental health.

And what I found there was absolutely consistent with my correlations
drawn from earlier study and experience. The sickest, and often most
dangerous children I worked with were subjected on the same scale to
punishment. Even children that had not had the harshest of parenting,
but just routine hard spankings, had serious problems.

We can of course simply go the Darwinian route here, and say that those
children too delicate of constitution were being culled out, and only
those hardy enough to maintian were left in the general population.

I can't buy that, of course.

What is the answer?

Mine is that I look at the entire body of knowledge, and even if both
are anecdotal I then weigh it against the risks of a bad outcome for
the child.

My work familiarity with prison populations, juvenile and adult, tells
me that that one is not going to find unspanked children in either
setting. I found not a single case record, and I must have read
thousands in my long career, where corporal punishment was not a
factor.

From mild too harsh, they all, mentally ill, and criminal, had CP in
their history.

I presume they all drank milk too, the favorite comeback of the
spanking apologists, but then no even distant correlation has been
considered for crime and milk drinking, though I did have one out of
control child in my care that was allergic to dairy, and when we
stopped him drinking milk his behavior turned angelic. Same with other
allergies.

No the point is corporal punishment has too many risks of too serious a
nature. From crime and mental illness, and social maladjustment to
physical injury and death.

The arguments in favor of CP have never overcome this. Their claims of
good outcomes do not stand up when the data is examined. And the more
harsh the society is toward it's children the more savage and hostile
the society.

If you wish to argue from your "just knowing" there won't ever be a
resolution. The laws that will be coming before much longer (and are in
place in many countries, and school systems here, and the already
existent child abuse laws) will be based on the knowledge we have that
correlates crime, mental illness, child abuse, and injury with corporal
punishment.

And while the apologists will want to continue the debate it will be
pointless. In a few years the sharp reduction in spanking will bear
fruit. The same that come because spanking has lost favor in the US to
an already remarkable degree. That's why spankers hide their behavior.

We used to see people spank children publically without a thought. We
no longer see that.

It's a prophetic occurance.

Kane

Doan wrote:

goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all.

Ignoranus Kane0 said:

"He was so busy cherry picking, all that he knows how to do in debate,
that he didn't bother to investigate more widely. I have, for instance,
in this case, not only read far more widely than he on this issue, but
I've even posted an e-mail to the Hutterite community asking if they'd
mind filling me in on their practices concerning child discipline."

LOL!

Doan


On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote:


Doan wrote:

goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all.

Doan wrote:....nothing....snip......


On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote:


goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all.

Don't you just love the success of his mother? Just look at how this
"never-spanked" boy turned out - ignoranus Kane0! ;-)

Doan


On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote:


Doan wrote:....nothing....snip......


On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote:


goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ...

alt.parenting.spanking

"Doan"

"The Question"

"Embry study"

"Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure
on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain
the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the
study.)

This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to
spank.

He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more
scruples than the worst child beater.

Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the
facts.

His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack
rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point
out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others
to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue,
logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the
"snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point.

No honor. No ethics. And no "face."

His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they
spanked him.

And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised
such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all.

http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm

PREACHER OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST: DR. DOBSON NEEDS TO MAKE UP HIS MIND
By Ralph S. Welsh, Ph.D., ABPP
SOURCE: Connecticut Psychologist, Newsletter of the Connecticut
Psychological Association, Winter, 2006, Vol. 59, Number 4, page 6.

In my opinion, psychologist and presidential advisor, the Rev. Dr. James
Dobson is a very dangerous man.

I have been following his career for many years, from the time in the
late 60s while I was teaching at Fairfield University and doing research
on the relationship between physical discipline and delinquency. His odd
little book, Dare to Discipline caught my eye, and I was astounded to
later find that it eventually became a runaway best seller.
Unfortunately, it launched his career as a darling of the far right.

Although the book does seem to have a folksy, common sense approach to
childrearing, its stealth message is far more disturbing. In short,
going against all research then and now, Dobson advocates the
“judicious” spanking of children. One is immediately struck with the
vivid descriptions of the brutality of his own mother, in Dare to
Discipline, who he doggedly insists “taught me right from wrong”—and I
might add, in very short order. Unfortunately, that was not all it
taught him. Extreme discipline produces anger, and Dr. Dobson is one
angry man.

Dobson is now seen as the primary spokesperson for the Christian right.
Recently Bush prevailed upon him to speak out for the Harriet Miers
nomination to the Supreme Court. Clearly the man’ s currently one of the
most influential persons in Washington.

Dobson’s influence in regard to the administration’s decision to go to
war may be far greater than anyone realizes. While Bush was wavering on
the war, Dobson counseled him to pray and “look for a sign from God.”
Apparently Bush followed his advice. According to news reports Bush told
Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, “God told me to strike al Qaida and I
struck them, and He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” I
suspect God failed to realize what a mess this would get us into.

Dobson has characterized gay marriage as “a looming catastrophe of epic
proportions.” He has described late trimester abortion as a procedure
where “the brains are sucked from a baby’s head” and insists that all
abortions are murder. He has called the cartoon character SpongeBob
SquarePants a leftist effort to promote homosexuality, and the concept
of “diversity” as a liberal catchword which is really a disguise for
encouraging the acceptance of gay unions.

Closer to home, Dobson’s organization the Family Research Council, at
the urging of radio host Dr. Laura, spearheaded a vicious attack on the
APA for publishing what his organization considered an endorsement of
pedophilia. These attacks exacted a protracted emotional toll on the
administration of the APA. This extreme reaction was in response to a
scholarly article published in the Psychological Bulletin that
acknowledged many victims of pedophilia are minimally damaged. In April
of 1999, Rep. Tom DeLay denounced the APA on the floor of the House of
Representatives, claiming that our association and all of its members
were supporters of pedophilia. Nearly all of the March, 2002 issue of
the American Psychologist is devoted to this historic volcanic upheaval
to our association.

In spite of the utter absurdity of the theory of Intelligent Design,
Dobson is one of the primary advocates of teaching this anti-science,
faith based nonsense in the classroom. If he is successful (the
president thinks it is a good idea), America could well become the
laughingstock of the world’s scientific community. The ability to
attract the best and brightest to a scientific career could be compromised.

I wonder how many innocent Christian children will be physically
mistreated today, because of his sanctioning of physical discipline? My
own research suggests that many of these “spanked” children will grow up
to be bullies, delinquents and criminals.

If, indeed, Dobson contributed to the war when he encouraging the
president to take unilateral action against what he termed an “axis of
evil,” he will have to take some measure of responsibility for all of
those young Americans, and innocent Iraqis who have died in this
senseless war. As the readers of this newsletter know, I was against the
war before it began, and am sorry that my predictions of it being a
disaster came to pass. In admonishing other nations to join his war,
Bush cautioned, “He that is not with me is against me (Mathew 12:3);
this is vintage Dobson.

James Dobson does not believe in global warming; his Family Research
Council is a darling of big business. It’s a good thing his Focus on the
family is quartered in Colorado. The rising oceans, burning of the
rainforests, and increased ferocity of hurricanes will probably affect
him less there than if he was in Florida.

Feeling emboldened by his White House connections, Dobson has keyed
specific Democrats for his wrath if they try to hold up presidential
appointments Dobson considers vital to his cause, and has even
threatened the political life of Bill Frist for taking a less extreme
stance on the stem cell issue. How many people will die because of the
life saving research that has been scotched because of the stem cell
partial ban?

I find it odd that my fellow psychologists have been so quiet about this
man’s growing power and influence in the inner circles of Washington. He
needs to be exposed for the charlatan he is, and I am ashamed to call
him a colleague-- someone so visible in our profession who has strayed
so far away from his scientific roots. On his website one can read these
words by Dobson: “Science can be a wonderful instrument of good as long
as it respects the bounds of moral principal?” This one brief statement
exemplifies his total lack of understanding of what science is all
about. Faith based science is an oxymoron.

Psychology is a science based on empiricism and careful theory building.
When a psychologist operates outside of the parameters of fact
gathering, non-sectarian, objective, slogging science, he/she has lost
his/her credibility with our collective scientific community. More
importantly those who ignore objective reality in favor of “subjective
faith” run the risk of reality jumping out and biting them—including all
of the innocent people who that non- reality has affected.

http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm

More from this author at:

http://www.nospank.net/welsh.htm#welsh11

--
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

http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm

ROD INSPIRED WISDOM
By Adah Maurer, Ph.D., 1993

"The rod and reproof bring wisdom." (Proverbs 29: 15) Now King Solomon,
we are told, had seven hundred wives and thus must have had a goodly
number of children. Presumably he practiced what he preached and all
were raised by the rod. How did his own children turn out? Did they
honor their father and grow in wisdom? Perhaps the story of Solomon's
sons carries the real message of what happens to families when children
are beaten with rods.

When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. At the
coronation, the people petitioned for a redress of grievances. Led by
Jeroboam, once Solomon's chief executive officer but later an exile in
Egypt, they came before the new king and said, "Your father put a heavy
yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on
us and we will serve you."(II Chronicles 10:4)

Rehoboam was unsure of how to answer. He told them to come back in three
days and sought counsel, first from the elder statesmen among his father
Solomon's wisemen. They advised that he agree to lighten the load.

Their counsel was: "If you will be kind to these people and please them
and give them a favorable answer, they will always be loyal subjects."

But Rehoboam rejected the advice from the elder statesmen and turned
instead to the young men who had grown up with him -- the horde of half
brothers who were also Solomon's sons. From them he heard the ultimate
insult to the memory of their father. They said to tell the people: "My
little finger is thicker than my father's loins." (II Chronicles 10:10).

What Solomon's son said of their father remains in the private and
vulgar language of junior high age boys to this day. To say that a man
has a thin, small organ is to say that he lacks what it takes to be a
man, that he is a wimp with no real guts at all. To growing boys, this
is the ultimate insult.

Solomon's sons advised their elder brother to tell the people -- as some
might express it today, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" They told him to
say: "My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier.
My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions."(I
Kings 12:14)

What were scorpions? It sounds like they may have been whips with
multiple strips with stingers at the tips, perhaps something like a
cat-o-nine-tails used to flog sailors in the days of sail. Whatever
scorpions were, they were dreaded by the people.

King Rehoboam followed the advice of the young men who had been raised
with him under the rod of correction. The people who had come to him in
good faith listened to his insulting threats and went home to their
tents. But they were so angry that the next time the King and his
foreman in charge of forced labor came to conscript laborers, they
stoned the foreman to death and Rehoboam himself barely escaped in his
chariot back to town. (II Chronicles 10:18)

Ten of the tribes, led by Jeroboam revolted. Many years of devastating
civil war followed. "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the
days of his life" (I Kings 15:6). Rehoboam forsook the Lord and turned
to idol worship. Jerusalem was raided by the Egyptians who carried off
much of Solomon's treasure. Rehoboam "did evil because he prepared not
his heart to seek the Lord" (II Chronicles 12:9,14).

The civil war continued after Rehoboam's death and after Jeroboam's
death. At length the divided and weakened Jewish kingdom, first Israel
in the north, then Judah in the south, was overrun and conquered."


http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm


--
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

The Hutterites did. ;-)

Ignoranus Kane0 said:
"It's the non-violent gentle nature of their parenting with a fine tuned
application of developmentally approriate teaching."

Doan said:
So spanking is now part of a "non-violent gentle nature"???

Ignoranus Kane0 replied:
"It was in this instance. It has been in research provided by you in the
past."


Doan


On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pohaku Kane wrote:

http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm

ROD INSPIRED WISDOM
By Adah Maurer, Ph.D., 1993

"The rod and reproof bring wisdom." (Proverbs 29: 15) Now King Solomon,
we are told, had seven hundred wives and thus must have had a goodly
number of children. Presumably he practiced what he preached and all
were raised by the rod. How did his own children turn out? Did they
honor their father and grow in wisdom? Perhaps the story of Solomon's
sons carries the real message of what happens to families when children
are beaten with rods.

When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. At the
coronation, the people petitioned for a redress of grievances. Led by
Jeroboam, once Solomon's chief executive officer but later an exile in
Egypt, they came before the new king and said, "Your father put a heavy
yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on
us and we will serve you."(II Chronicles 10:4)

Rehoboam was unsure of how to answer. He told them to come back in three
days and sought counsel, first from the elder statesmen among his father
Solomon's wisemen. They advised that he agree to lighten the load.

Their counsel was: "If you will be kind to these people and please them
and give them a favorable answer, they will always be loyal subjects."

But Rehoboam rejected the advice from the elder statesmen and turned
instead to the young men who had grown up with him -- the horde of half
brothers who were also Solomon's sons. From them he heard the ultimate
insult to the memory of their father. They said to tell the people: "My
little finger is thicker than my father's loins." (II Chronicles 10:10).

What Solomon's son said of their father remains in the private and
vulgar language of junior high age boys to this day. To say that a man
has a thin, small organ is to say that he lacks what it takes to be a
man, that he is a wimp with no real guts at all. To growing boys, this
is the ultimate insult.

Solomon's sons advised their elder brother to tell the people -- as some
might express it today, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" They told him to
say: "My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier.
My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions."(I
Kings 12:14)

What were scorpions? It sounds like they may have been whips with
multiple strips with stingers at the tips, perhaps something like a
cat-o-nine-tails used to flog sailors in the days of sail. Whatever
scorpions were, they were dreaded by the people.

King Rehoboam followed the advice of the young men who had been raised
with him under the rod of correction. The people who had come to him in
good faith listened to his insulting threats and went home to their
tents. But they were so angry that the next time the King and his
foreman in charge of forced labor came to conscript laborers, they
stoned the foreman to death and Rehoboam himself barely escaped in his
chariot back to town. (II Chronicles 10:18)

Ten of the tribes, led by Jeroboam revolted. Many years of devastating
civil war followed. "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the
days of his life" (I Kings 15:6). Rehoboam forsook the Lord and turned
to idol worship. Jerusalem was raided by the Egyptians who carried off
much of Solomon's treasure. Rehoboam "did evil because he prepared not
his heart to seek the Lord" (II Chronicles 12:9,14).

The civil war continued after Rehoboam's death and after Jeroboam's
death. At length the divided and weakened Jewish kingdom, first Israel
in the north, then Judah in the south, was overrun and conquered."


http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm


--
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

We are always working on improving methods in all areas including parenting, you know.

Hence the reason reasonable parents no longer use notted plow lines,
boards, paddels, switches, or any of the other things that have a long
history of use in this and other countries. We have made progress,
improved methods, and understand that reasonable people make an effort
to ensure that the child understands what it was that they did wrong
and why it was wrong. Another of the tools we keep telling you about.
One of many.

No, the years when spanking has been used don't prove anything about its effectiveness.

Well actually it does. Nature itself devised the best known method for
behavior modification, and while you can "argue" against it you cannot
do so credibly without something of at least similar background or
having overwhelming evidence to support your claims. So far you have
neither.

Ron