If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote it in this newsgroup. You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-) Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years. The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself. Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired? A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false! ;-) Citation. Ask Dorothy! She is on your side. Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are. Afraid she would embarass you? ;-) No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing again? Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being harassed? Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates. You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being harassed, STUPID! ;-) Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy. Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-) How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with Dr. Embry? She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study. That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy. Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did? Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I believe, it did not turn up on a search. Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right? How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report? I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me. It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open your mouth to made a FALSE claim. Nor stupid. But you are STUPID! ;-) I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work since. Hihihi! YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead. More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out of a copy, remembered? ;-) 0:- I don't have a 'side.' Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither! Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:- Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-) Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid? No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-) 0:- Doan Keep lying, stupid. Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the argument! "You don't have a brain neither!" You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study, and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a real mail box number, little boy. More lies! Nope. Yes! Doan ... alias Alina. And a liar. The only liar here is YOU! Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:- You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why don't you? Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still around? You haven't answered either question. I don't know. Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much. Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"! She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern. Hahaha! What a proud mom! Doan How's your conscience, child? Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-) Doan |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote it in this newsgroup. You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-) Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years. The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself. Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired? A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false! ;-) Citation. Ask Dorothy! She is on your side. Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are. Afraid she would embarass you? ;-) No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing again? Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being harassed? Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates. You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being harassed, STUPID! ;-) My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't split hairs, liar. Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy. Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-) I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar. How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with Dr. Embry? She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study. That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy. Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did? Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I believe, it did not turn up on a search. Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right? We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search yourself? How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report? I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me. It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open your mouth to made a FALSE claim. None made. You are lying again. Nor stupid. But you are STUPID! ;-) I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work since. Hihihi! YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead. More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out of a copy, remembered? ;-) Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar. 0:- I don't have a 'side.' Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither! Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:- Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-) Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid? No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-) On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, not spanking. See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you. 0:- Doan Keep lying, stupid. Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the argument! "You don't have a brain neither!" You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study, and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a real mail box number, little boy. More lies! Nope. Yes! Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets the picture easily enough. Doan ... alias Alina. And a liar. The only liar here is YOU! Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:- You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why don't you? I did. Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still around? You haven't answered either question. I don't know. Well ask, stupid. Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much. Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"! She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern. Hahaha! What a proud mom! Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you. Doan How's your conscience, child? Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-) You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't lying when you are. Doan Hihihi. 0:- -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote it in this newsgroup. You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-) Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years. The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself. Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired? A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false! ;-) Citation. Ask Dorothy! She is on your side. Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are. Afraid she would embarass you? ;-) No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing again? Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being harassed? Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates. You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being harassed, STUPID! ;-) My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't split hairs, liar. Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Since you don't feel harassed, I am harassing you, STUPID! My purpose is not to harass you. My purpose is to expose your lies and STUPIDITY! Got it, LIAR! ;-) Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy. Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-) I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar. Now, why would I do your work for you, STUPID LIAR? ;-) How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with Dr. Embry? She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study. That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy. Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did? Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I believe, it did not turn up on a search. Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right? We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search yourself? Hahaha! Anyone except you could have found it. You have proven your stupidity by not being able to find it and then have the nerve to say that it can only be gotten from somewhere else. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! ;-) How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report? I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me. It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open your mouth to made a FALSE claim. None made. You are lying again. You were the one that said it can only be gotten from the author, LIAR! Nor stupid. But you are STUPID! ;-) No response so I take it that you admit to being STUPID! I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work since. Hihihi! YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead. More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out of a copy, remembered? ;-) Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar. Hahaha! Then why did you sent her a copy? You are too stupid to even make such a stupid lie! ;-) 0:- I don't have a 'side.' Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither! Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:- Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-) Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid? No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-) On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, not spanking. Look it up, STUPID! Prove that it was about Iraq and Afghanistan. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-) See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you. Prove it! Show me the evidence or SHUT UP, STUPID! ;-) 0:- Doan Keep lying, stupid. Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the argument! "You don't have a brain neither!" You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study, and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a real mail box number, little boy. More lies! Nope. Yes! Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets the picture easily enough. Hihihi! They got the picture of your lies which I exposed alright! Doan ... alias Alina. And a liar. The only liar here is YOU! Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:- You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why don't you? I did. Hihihi! Then why don't you get back here? Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still around? You haven't answered either question. I don't know. Well ask, stupid. Why should I, stupid? Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much. Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"! She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern. Hahaha! What a proud mom! Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you. Hihihi! You obviously don't know what is moral and ethical. Doan How's your conscience, child? Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-) You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't lying when you are. That would be you, STUPID! ;-) Doan Hihihi. Hahaha! ;-) AF |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: 0:- wrote: wrote: On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote: I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote it in this newsgroup. You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-) Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years. The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself. Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired? A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false! ;-) Citation. Ask Dorothy! She is on your side. Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are. Afraid she would embarass you? ;-) No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing again? Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being harassed? Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates. You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being harassed, STUPID! ;-) My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't split hairs, liar. Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Since you don't feel harassed, I am harassing you, STUPID! My purpose is not to harass you. My purpose is to expose your lies and STUPIDITY! Got it, LIAR! ;-) Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy. Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-) I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar. Now, why would I do your work for you, STUPID LIAR? ;-) How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with Dr. Embry? She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study. That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy. Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did? Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I believe, it did not turn up on a search. Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right? We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search yourself? Hahaha! Anyone except you could have found it. You have proven your stupidity by not being able to find it and then have the nerve to say that it can only be gotten from somewhere else. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! ;-) How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report? I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me. It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open your mouth to made a FALSE claim. None made. You are lying again. You were the one that said it can only be gotten from the author, LIAR! Nor stupid. But you are STUPID! ;-) No response so I take it that you admit to being STUPID! I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work since. Hihihi! YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead. More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out of a copy, remembered? ;-) Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar. Hahaha! Then why did you sent her a copy? You are too stupid to even make such a stupid lie! ;-) 0:- I don't have a 'side.' Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither! Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:- Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-) Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid? No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-) On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, not spanking. Look it up, STUPID! Prove that it was about Iraq and Afghanistan. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-) And do your work for you? R R R R R R See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you. Prove it! Show me the evidence or SHUT UP, STUPID! ;-) Nope. Nope. Nope. Clear enough for you, stupid? 0:- Doan Keep lying, stupid. Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the argument! "You don't have a brain neither!" You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study, and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a real mail box number, little boy. More lies! Nope. Yes! Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets the picture easily enough. Hihihi! They got the picture of your lies which I exposed alright! Not if they can read and think for themselves. Doan ... alias Alina. And a liar. The only liar here is YOU! Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:- You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why don't you? I did. Hihihi! Then why don't you get back here? Mmm...more brilliance? Go take a class in simple expository writing, Doan. You might be able to lie more convincingly. What IS that sentence supposed to mean? Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still around? You haven't answered either question. I don't know. Well ask, stupid. Why should I, stupid? Out of love and concern. Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much. Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"! She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern. Hahaha! What a proud mom! Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you. Hihihi! You obviously don't know what is moral and ethical. You consider it moral and ethical, as Fern did, to champion the beating of children, using objects, in church on their naked bodies then. Okay, have it your way, Doan. 0:- Doan How's your conscience, child? Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-) You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't lying when you are. That would be you, STUPID! ;-) Nope. I got the right person, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Dancing Monkeyboy. Doan Hihihi. Hahaha! ;-) AF Yep. Lying all the way Doan, and even your laughter is hollow. You know how immoral you are. And you reveal it in each post. 0:- -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
Doug wrote:
Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as PEER PRESSURE be the main issue? Hi, Greg, Alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. All domains are involved, but the biological, genetic component is a big part of the picture. And yes, those predisposed to alcoholism represent a decided minority of the population -- 10%. Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition. My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED liquor for us, teaching moderation. In your case, it appears that both the biological and social components were non-alcoholic. Since your parents almost never drank and demonstrated moderation when they did so, the social domain you were subjected to was one of moderation. When I went to college, I was strongly pressured SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED. In other one on one situations like dating I did drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons. Many non-alcoholic people are pressured by peers in college and succumb to the pressure through binge drinking, etc. It is a common ritual at that age. However, laking the other components to the disease of alcoholism, these folks stop drinking in this way when they leave college. These young people are certainly using alcohol irresponsibly and, at that time, may be diagnosed as substance abusers, but they are not chemically dependent. An alcoholic, on the other hand, is dependent on the drug. I should have made the distinction between chemical abuse and chemical dependency in my initial post. I apologize for the resulting confusion. My post concentrated on alcoholism, which involves those who are chemically dependent upon the drug. I do not drink liquor at all. I also don't smoke or do any drugs. Alcohol effects those who are predisposed to alcoholism in an entirely different way. They are a different reaction to the drug from the onset. To them, it goes "BOOM." To those who are not predisposed, it goes "tinkle, tinkle." Apparently we disagree about the importance of the SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption. Perhaps. It is more likely we were talking about two different things. Peer pressure and other elements in the social domain are a big player in liquor consumption. I agree with your views in this respect. But for the user to become dependent upon the drug, there are usually contributors from the biological and psychological domains. While I must comply with the law, I lament that parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor or teach moderation in this way. My point was that children learn moderation by observing how their parents drink. This would certainly be influence in the social domain and very powerful. Which of course was my argument and makes the argument of others here pointlessly misleading. http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22 http://tinyurl.com/ltvvn Apparently some French parents aren't demonstrating sufficiently. -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Sweden ... was ... Would you spank in this situation?
BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden during 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased number of police reports on physical child abuse. Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the 1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a 489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal abuse and violence. http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden.html |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Sweden ... was ... Would you spank in this situation?
Doug wrote:
BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in Sweden during 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased number of police reports on physical child abuse. Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the 1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a 489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal abuse and violence. http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden.html Can't remember how many times this pap has been referred to in alt.parenting.spanking, and how many times I've posted Durrant's brilliant rebuttal. Robert E. Larzelere is notorious as one of the most articulate purveyors of the spankers dream-state. That there is no harm in spanking. Have you read Durrant's rebuttal? You really must. Sweden, as I believe I posted recently, has a very difficult system of child abuse reporting, and very different than the U.S. Let's look at the Lyons-Larzelere logic shall we? Here is what the cited report you offer says: "Further, hardly any of the soundest studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with corporal punishment." While the above suggest MANY studies (oh, the clever language of the propagandist) they in fact state earlier, "Surprisingly, this search located only five published studies with any relevant data." What would "hardly any" if even ONE out of five showed something very different and DID find such associations of detrimental outcomes? It would mean, Doug, for the honest, that the percentage of disagreement deserves closer inspection. And some thoughtful speculation that the spanking proponents choices were just a tad cherry picked, possibly. 0:- What is even MORE remarkably phony and laughable, is that THIS paper by Lyons and Larzerele does a considerable bit of SELF CITATION from earlier work. Were THOSE some of the five research studies they considered? R R R R R Then we come to this gem (and now we are suddenly considering over a dozen studies, yet they began with only FIVE being credible to their was of thinking, tsk: "Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only 1 of those 3 made any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of corporal punishment." Mmmm....and who will decide what is and is not abusive when it comes to hitting children? There IS no clear definition anywhere in the world. The very nature of the act of striking someone is so ripe with potential, both physical and psychological, that no such set of criteria can be formulated. I've seen a few efforts but they've all been either sloppy pieces of self deluding crap, or clever but vacuum filled chamber pots, if you get my drift. Even the same child would experience a hit one day as different than one another day under different circumstances. Harm, detriment, is a very foggy term. Poorly defined even in the fields that study such things more closely, such as medical research or psychological research. They can tell afterward, somewhat, but they cannot reliable predict what the outcome of any particular hit might be. That's why you'll see advocates for an end to spanking focusing so much on OUTCOMES that have taken place rather than so much on predictions of what might occur. When we speak of the detrimental outcomes for children such as adults that have a higher incidence of mental health problems, such as depression, and issues such as addiction, we are counting ADULTS THAT ARE REPORTING and reveal they were spanked as children. Here's the Durrant rebuttal. YOU won't be able to see, most likely, the exposure of the less than complete veracity of L and L, but most others will. http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/hu...n%20Sweden.pdf http://tinyurl.com/gu74s .... Foreword The Christian Institute and Families First have published a booklet written by Robert Larzelere, University of Nebraska Medical Center. The publishers claim that this booklet presents a “devastating critique” of my research on Sweden’s corporal punishment ban. Throughout the booklet, Larzelere accuses me of bias, claims that my conclusions contradict the evidence, and implies that my research is based more on “good intentions” than on rigorous analysis. This attack on my research goes beyond the level of academic debate and warrants a full response. The purpose of this document is to provide that response. Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D. University of Manitoba ... I would not want to be Mr. Larzerele. He also attempted to rebut this response, but his fumbling and bull**** were made more than evident by himself. I even had a thought pass through my mind as I read his bull**** that he might have been using YOU as a consultant. R R R R R R R Very much the same kind of fogging language and distracting from the issues. Kane -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else) |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Would you spank in this situation?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
adoption/surrogacy situation, bf after hysterectomy? | dkhedmo | Breastfeeding | 5 | May 21st 06 03:14 AM |
Need Comments on Situation | WiseSarah | Child Support | 0 | July 4th 04 01:33 PM |
Christian History Corner: To Spank or Not to Spank? | billy f | Spanking | 0 | June 28th 04 07:54 AM |
| And again he barks........ Kane barks ...... again! was Kids should work... | Kane | General | 9 | December 9th 03 07:08 AM |
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... | Kane | General | 2 | December 6th 03 04:28 AM |