What has hapenned to this group?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:52:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:38:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.

The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".

And how do you spank without hitting the child, Doan?
You can't. Now, you can pat lightly (though it is very doubtful
if spankers would consider that a spanking), but you can't
spank without hitting. You can hit without spanking since
spanking is a rather specific kind of hitting, but you guys
are ridiculous in claiming that spanking is not hitting.

And where did I claim that spanking is not hitting? How do
pat someone without "hitting" him/her, Dorothy?

See above. The person you said *well stated* for claimed it.

Please quote EXACTLY where I said that. And please response to
my question with regarding to patting.

Doan

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.
Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.

A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
betterment.

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

I think you're both quite daft. Hitting is done with the intent to cause pain or other bodily harm. Now if you are patting somone on the back in an effort to cause them bodily harm then yes that is hitting.

Originally Posted by Ron

The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.
Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.

Again Hitting is doing so with the intent to cause pain and or bodily harm. Spanking is done to cause pain and or bodily harm. The two are the same. Trying to dress up Spanking into something positive, is like putting a Rottweiler in a Poodle costume and Naming it "fluffy"

Originally Posted by Ron

A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
betterment.

Ron

So you think you are making your child a better person by striking them? Interesting justification. I love you so much so I'm going to hurt you and/or cause you bodily harm and emotional trauma.
You know pedephiles use the same logic to justify raping children. "I did it because I love him/her so much"

On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.

LOL. A person who is hitting someone else in a fight probably
thinks that will correct the behavior of the other person too.
This is especially true in the case of someone who is *fighting
back* after being bullied or abused.

Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.

Parents need to consider the reasons for the child's behavior as well.
Using spanking does not do that in general.

A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
betterment.

Bull****.

Spanking is in general ineffective in the long term. It is a short
term solution for *controlling* behavior, but even behaviorists have
noted that rewards work better than aversives in controlling the
behavior of both animals and children. Sometimes it works in
that short term, but the long term consequences produce a loss
of internal ethical standards. Those who were spanked will, in
general, try to justify it because they cannot bear to see their own
parents methods criticized and because they are going along
with *tradition* because after all, tradition is always right.

Spanking does several things in the long term that are detrimental
to the development of good self-discipline in children. Any
behaviorist treatment is controlling and children learn the wrong
message about their behavior and who should control it. This
includes using material rewards, btw.

Children when spanked learn the following (these are not mutually
exclusive and some children learn to apply each lesson at different
times in their lives)

The child may learn to be sneaky. This child will do whatever she
wants to do when no adult is around because he has learned that
he can get away with things as long as she doesn't get caught and
punished. This child has no sense of right and wrong. She has
learned that someone outside himself sets the standard, but that
she doesn't need to have that standard when the adult is not around.
ShHe is at the lowest level of ethical functioning.

The child may learn to obey out of fear of getting caught. Again
this child has no sense of what is right and what is wrong other
than what the adult in his life tells him. This is the child too who
probably looks to authority to define his values. These are the
sheeple who follow the crowd. They will believe that the values that
society holds are correct. They will not fight against slavery or any
other societal ill because after all the authorities defined what was
correct.

The child may, otoh, learn to rebel against all authority. This is
the child who gets into big trouble in school, with the law, with
parents, etc. This child won't obey because that would mean her
spirit was broken. She will fight tooth and nail to hold onto her
dignity even if it means going to jail. She too has no sense of what
is right and wrong beyond the fact that she will *not* obey you
because you are the authority who is trying to control her.

Ron


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

So is patting! Saying that you "hit" your child instead of patting
on the back is an obvius attempt at obfuscation. It's a common
tactic used when a debater has nothing better to offer.

Doan

toto wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

The difference between a spanking and "hitting" is the purpose in the
minds of both the individuals administering and receiving.

LOL. A person who is hitting someone else in a fight probably
thinks that will correct the behavior of the other person too.
This is especially true in the case of someone who is *fighting
back* after being bullied or abused.

Administering correction in ANY form requires that the individual
receiving the correction understands the reasons and the expected
outcome of the correction. Failure to make that clear to the child
changes the correction from a spanking to hitting.

Parents need to consider the reasons for the child's behavior as well.
Using spanking does not do that in general.

A good solid spanking for reasonable purposes can be considered one of
those ultimate expressions of love, since we are willing to cause some
pain to those we love, and therefore to ourselves, for that individuals
betterment.

Bull****.

Spanking is in general ineffective in the long term. It is a short
term solution for *controlling* behavior, but even behaviorists have
noted that rewards work better than aversives in controlling the
behavior of both animals and children. Sometimes it works in
that short term, but the long term consequences produce a loss
of internal ethical standards. Those who were spanked will, in
general, try to justify it because they cannot bear to see their own
parents methods criticized and because they are going along
with *tradition* because after all, tradition is always right.

Spanking does several things in the long term that are detrimental
to the development of good self-discipline in children. Any
behaviorist treatment is controlling and children learn the wrong
message about their behavior and who should control it. This
includes using material rewards, btw.

Children when spanked learn the following (these are not mutually
exclusive and some children learn to apply each lesson at different
times in their lives)

The child may learn to be sneaky. This child will do whatever she
wants to do when no adult is around because he has learned that
he can get away with things as long as she doesn't get caught and
punished. This child has no sense of right and wrong. She has
learned that someone outside himself sets the standard, but that
she doesn't need to have that standard when the adult is not around.
ShHe is at the lowest level of ethical functioning.

The child may learn to obey out of fear of getting caught. Again
this child has no sense of what is right and what is wrong other
than what the adult in his life tells him. This is the child too who
probably looks to authority to define his values. These are the
sheeple who follow the crowd. They will believe that the values that
society holds are correct. They will not fight against slavery or any
other societal ill because after all the authorities defined what was
correct.

The child may, otoh, learn to rebel against all authority. This is
the child who gets into big trouble in school, with the law, with
parents, etc. This child won't obey because that would mean her
spirit was broken. She will fight tooth and nail to hold onto her
dignity even if it means going to jail. She too has no sense of what
is right and wrong beyond the fact that she will *not* obey you
because you are the authority who is trying to control her.

Another question might be, "when is a hit a spank and a hit a spank?"

A pat, obviously is neither. But a pat is very light indeed.

Is a spank light enough not to be a hit?

If so, how is it that some spankers include hitting with a paddle, and
hitting with a switch, and hitting with a belt or strap?

Are those users of Corporal Punishment not acceptable to the
"spankers," and not spankers themselves because they hit with an
object?

Is the question then even tied to what we call the impact, but rather
to the force used?

It brings up the same question I've asked before of, 'When is CP
abusive and where is the line between abuse and instructional
discipline?"

If one can teach without using CP, why use it? Since there is exactly
this risk of going over line without even knowing it until it's too
late?

Or are there some things that can't be taught without the use of CP?
What would they be?

I had little difficulty in teaching my children and hundreds of far
more difficult children not to do unwanted behavior. It wasn't that
hard, compared to how hard it is to deal with the risks, and the
everpresent sideeffects of CP? Or for that matter, any kind of
punishment, even non CP.

Must we spank? Why?

All the currect data, that observer for instance, wishes to deny and
ignore, tells us that violent crime among youth has dropped
consistently over the years, in fact for two decades. I believe
unwanted pregnancies are down. I personally have see no more, and I'd
say actually less "disrespect" in the current crop of kids over the
ones I grew up with. We were the James Dean crowd back then. We had
gangs, and we had lots of defiance, but we simply hid it better.

Is that what we want? The appearance of compliance, but the crime rates
of my day?

Or maybe the slightly nuttier LOOKING kids of today and more compliance
willingly as seems to be the case given the stats on real behaviors?
(We all looked nutty to the prior generation...my dad complained of it,
and his about him. And the Romans about theirs.)

Kane


Ron


--
Dorothy

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

The Outer Limits

Originally Posted by Doan

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

So is patting! Saying that you "hit" your child instead of patting
on the back is an obvius attempt at obfuscation. It's a common
tactic used when a debater has nothing better to offer.

Doan

You are splitting straws Doan. That is a commen tactic used when a debater has nothing better or new to add to the debate, and so tries to discredit the other person by pointing out imaginary holes in the argument succeeding only making themselves look less than credible.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Doan Wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by
your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

So is patting! Saying that you "hit" your child instead of patting
on the back is an obvius attempt at obfuscation. It's a common
tactic used when a debater has nothing better to offer.

Doan

You are splitting straws Doan. That is a commen tactic used when a
debater has nothing better or new to add to the debate, and so tries to
discredit the other person by pointing out imaginary holes in the
argument succeeding only making themselves look less than credible.


Why is it so easy for you to see the speck in other people's eyes yet
not see the beam in yours! ;-)

Doan

Thanks Ron, very well said. And you bring up a good point. Spanking is a
tool and like any other tool it can be very effective if used properly.
However only if used properly.


"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com...
Historically, corporal punishment has been a staple of child rearing.
20,000 years or more of parents correcting inappropriate behaviors by
using natures own behavior modification system. And it has worked. We
are where we are as a species because we use those methods that prove
reliable, and those things that are a natural part of being human. Pain
is the best behavior modifier ever known. It is built into the human
body and we depend on it every minute of every day to tell us when we
are doing something that we should not be doing. It works, period.
Always has, always will. 20,000 years of testing, and while its not
quite perfect, as nothing is, it is effective.

Spanking is one of the tools available to parents. One, of many. As
with anyone who is shaping something, one must use the correct tool at
the proper time to achieve the result wanted. Remove the tool from the
tool box and you either dont get a finnished product or not the one you
intended to make when you started. And not every tool is necessary for
every child. Some tools you may never use, some you may use once, and
some may be required on an ongoing basis.

But, as with anything, corporal punishment has its place and time.
There are times when it is effective, and times when it is
counterproductive. A good parent learns to distinguish between the two,
and apply the best correction technique for the situation. Some people
never learn this subtle lesson, hence we get child abuse or out of
control children. Neither of those is good, for either the child or for
society. No matter one's resons for having children, our society
demands that we do our best to raise them to be responsible members.
When we fail to do so then the child pay's the bulk of the price for
our failure, not us.

As for your having fostered children, well so have I. More than 200 of
them over the last 15 years, well Corporal Punishment is
counterproductive in most cases when dealing with children in the
system. Most of them have already been abused in one way or another,
and could view corporal punishment as an extension of that abuse. The
objective of foster care is to prevent that type of thing, and
therefore corporal punishment is not an option, nor should it be.

I have seen Kane and others here quote studies that say that the vast
number of individuals in our nations prisons come from spanking
households. OK, this may be true, but to pin that group of individuals
criminal behaviors and background on whether their parents spanked them
or not as a child is like saying that someone is a carpenter rather
than a banker because they got toys rather than money for Christmas as
a kid. Both are nonsensical analogies

We can debate the pro's and cons of spanking all we like here. We all
have our opinions one way or the other (and some of us even admit it),
but to state absolutes such as "spanking is violence", or "spanking is
hitting" shows that the individual making that statement does not have
a very good grasp of the concepts or realities of the discussion.

Ron

Originally Posted by Doan

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Doan Wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 10 Jan 2006 05:56:49 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

Doan is quite correct. A pat on the back, a touch of any kind by
your
definition can be considered "hitting".

Sure it can, but no one would pat lightly as a spank, I am sure.
And spanking *is* still hitting the child.

So is patting! Saying that you "hit" your child instead of patting
on the back is an obvius attempt at obfuscation. It's a common
tactic used when a debater has nothing better to offer.

Doan

You are splitting straws Doan. That is a commen tactic used when a
debater has nothing better or new to add to the debate, and so tries to
discredit the other person by pointing out imaginary holes in the
argument succeeding only making themselves look less than credible.


Why is it so easy for you to see the speck in other people's eyes yet
not see the beam in yours! ;-)

Doan

Right back atcha