| Parenting Suggestions-

On 12 Nov 2004 08:22:34 -0800, (Chris C.) wrote:

...........and posted, obviously trolling for support, to
alt.christian.religion...

You'll find, Chris C., that not all Christians agree with assaulting
children and calling it "love."

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
http://stoptherod.net/

In the absence of any regular advice --here is some that doesn't
support punishing parents who don't follow them to the letter.

-Special notes to new posters: I do not support the reform of
reasonable force statutes

There is no such thing as "reasonable force statutes" regarding
corporal punishment of children. "reasonable force" is a statutory
concept relating to criminal law regarding the use of force in
situations where one is protecting self or others. It is used to judge
the use of force by police...who, by the way, are only allowed to use
force in three ways; to arrest someone's progress who resists, to
protect the officer, and to protect the suspect or others.

Police are not allowed by law to use force to "punish" as in "corporal
punishment." Any such attempt is prosecutable as "assault"
except.....in the instance of a parent assaulting a child physically.

Morally this is recognized in many nations as assault and a crime.
While I do not, at this time, presuming my neighbors and fellow
citizens to be morally progressive and cabable of responding to ethics
and logic in argument, support the use of statute to correct this very
sick practice of spanking.

that lead to punitive measures for parents
who may use discipline within the current legal limits (this would
include but is not limited to physical restraint to protect a child
from harm of self or others).

How does spanking "physically restrain"[t] a child? That is,
ostensibly, not it's purpose. Or it wouldn't be labeled as corporal
"punishment."

You are confusing one with the other to obscure the issue of spanking
being the moral equivalent of assault.

Your logic is badly flawed and you have not progressed, personally,
for as long as I've seen you post here. You fail to defend your
so-called
"choice" and you have failed logically repeatedly to defend spanking
as not being assaultive.

-also do not post any personal information on this site. Often
participants in this n.g. will use/abuse the information and conti
nue
to do so if you return.

Interestingly I find that you and your cronies are most often the
perpetrators of such abuse.

Upon my first visit to the ng a couple of years back I was stunned to
see Chris Dugan, who I could find NO posts written by the used ad hom
in any of his arguments, being repeatedly and viciously attacked by a
whole slew of low-lifes such as you (I'm not as polite as Chris D.)
From "LaChrissy" to YOU, to Fern, to Observer, to Doan and the
occasional asshole troll.

You, Chris C., are a phony. And any google of your posting history
here makes it plain you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You
pretend to an ethic you do not practice, and try to project your own
sick attacks as being done TO you rather than BY you.

48 Suggestions:

R R R ... in it's original, it is "Positive Discipline: 50 Principles
& Alternatives to Punishment"

Positive Discipline: 48 Principles & Alternatives to Punishment


Principle #1: Decode the message behind the misbehavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #2: Understand WHY the behavior is occurring

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #3: Help the child calm down by staying calm and speaking
calmly

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #4: Explain to the child how his/her behavior affects
others

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #5: If possible, alter the precipitating factors that led
to
the behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #6: Discuss together a non-punitive consequence for the
behavior that is logical to the behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And what the hell is a "non-punitive consequence?" A hug? I doubt you
assholes that obvious hate, distrust, and are frightened by little
children have it in you to respond to unwanted behavior with positive
consequences...though I've proven again and again, and taught others
how to do it, even with children that were so far gone that they were
diagnosed as mentally ill.

Principle #7: Carry out what you promised to carry out when you
promised to do so

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #8: Do not nag, lecture, threaten or use sarcasm

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #9: Praise efforts and reward success

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #10: If the behavior begins to occur again, give a reminder
of why the behavior is not appropriate- you will need to be
consistent
over time

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #11: Unless the behavior involves harming self, others or
property, give three warnings "1,2,3..."

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #12: Immediately follow through with the consequence with a
brief restating of the infraction in a firm (but friendly) tone

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #13: Discuss with the child what occurred, why it wasn't
acceptable and how it can be prevented in the future.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #14: Let the child voice his/her feelings freely without
judgment

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #15: Help the child to understand that he/she is a good,
acceptable person and that the behavior, not the child, is
unacceptable- accept young people unconditionally regardless of their
behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #16: Remember what it was like to be at the child's age.
Refrain from tacking adult meanings and connotations onto childish
behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #17: Read up on child and adolescent development and find
out if what you are expecting is developmentally appropriate- or if
the misbehavior is age-appropriate behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #18: Understand each child's individual capabilities, needs
and circumstances and modify your expectations and approaches
accordingly

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #19: If the child has multiple negative behaviors, only
focus on modifying those that are most destructive to self, others
and
property

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #20: Empower children with acceptable choices- don't just
tell them what they CAN'T do- give them acceptable alternatives

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #21: Use re-direction, distraction and selective ignoring
for minor infractions

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #22: Use of the toilet should be viewed as a necessary
right, not a privilege- promote health and healthy attitudes towards
the body by honoring this right- if children misuse the bathroom pass
in school, have them use the toilet in the nurse's office for one
week
as a consequence

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #23: Decode the need the child is trying to meet by his/her
misbehavior and help them meet that need by acceptable means

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #24: If the child is out of control, guide them to a quiet
area to calm down before discussing the problem

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #25: If a child must be placed in a "time out", do not
impose a time limit- let the child come out when he/she is ready-
never leave a young child unsupervised- never close a child into a
frightening room- do not banish the child

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #26: If the child comes out of a "time out" prematurely,
state that it looks as if he/she is ready to behave appropriately and
give them that chance- avoid forcing them back in unless the behavior
starts up again

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #27: Children often misbehave when they lack attention-
give
them the attention they need and deserve- including hugging, patting
the back, ruffling the hair, high fives, etc.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #28: Rather than give "do not" messages, state what you
would like to see instead

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #29: If physical restraint is necessary to avoid an attack
against the self or others, do so progressively, in stages beginning
with a verbal warning, increased physical proximity, followed by a
hand on the shoulder and then a gentle hand on the arm, progressing
with as little restraint as possible to keep the child from harming
self or others

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #30: If the child shows lack of attention and restlessness,
evaluate whether the activities you provide are stimulating,
exciting,
involving and appropriate to the learning style and intelligence
needs
of the child

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #31: Discuss the importance of verbalizing feelings rather
than acting on impulses- model this!

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #32: Model the behaviors you want to see your children
emulate

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #33: Do not engage in conduct that you don't allow in your
children

Then I can't have sex with consenting adults, smoke, drink alcohol,
cross the street by myself, or stay out after curfew. Get real you
simp.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #34: If your child has consistent behavioral problems do
your best to alleviate the causes- enforce only necessary limits and
cut away unnecessary rules and inflexible ways of doing things

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #35: Teach and model positive, healthy guilt and remorse
that leads to restitution and responsibility- teach and model good
social skills

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #36: Never shame, belittle or humiliate your child- help
them build a positive self-image and a healthy self-esteem

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #37: Admit when you've made mistakes and apologize to your
child

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #38: Teach and model that violence is not acceptable,
including that it is never acceptable for adults to hit children

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #39: Be involved with the media your child is viewing and
discuss what they see and why it is positive or negative

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #40: The rule about gaining respect is to earn it- you earn
it from a child by giving it to them

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #41: Help a frequently errant child succeed by giving
him/her small steps towards a goal that ensures success- never give
up
on a kid!

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #42: Do guide children and do not leave them to regulate
their own behavior- children feel unsafe when there are no limits at
all- spend more time with them

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #43: Tune in to, rather than ignore, physical and verbal
cues that something is bothering a child

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #44: Deescalate a problem before the child gets out of
control- be aware of the warning signs of escalating behavior

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #45: Treat boys with the same dignity and caring, gentle,
loving concern that you treat girls with- do not discipline boys for
a
behavior that you allow girls to get away with- do not tolerate
sexist
attitudes in girls that you wouldn't allow boys to get away with- do
not put gender restrictions on toys, emotions, hobbies and activities

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #46: Avoid power struggles and verbal fights with older
kids- negotiate democratically when possible

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #47: Honor a child's need for autonomy and power over some
aspects of his/her decisions- let them make decisions where
appropriate

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Principle #48: Above all, treat all children with dignity and respect
by refraining from using negative, punitive and violent methods of
control- Use positive methods that promote critical thinking and show
love, caring, empathy, understanding and patience towards all
children

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

--I'm interested in hearing from those of you who are not supportive
of the "cohort" agenda to punish parents through revoking the
reasonable force statutes on the books.

There are not "reasonable force" statutes regarding parent child
discipline. CP is CP.

Here in TX we are keeping an
eye on them when they try to harm families by extending the control
of
laws to further limit family rights and by putting kids at greater
risk through the use of spurious data/research.--I am not interested
in any
contact with the"cohort"

What is a 'cohort'?"

and have
boycotted any conversations with them for several years now.

You are a reasonable then in your "debate" of the subject as all the
other little dim twits that show up here and move on because they fail
to put forward logic and ethical argument. In other words they fail to
defend the practice of spanking as a reasonable means of treating
children.

Their
agenda is all to obvious and very harmful to families.

The making of peaceful families that do not use pain and humiliation
is not a harmful agenda.

--The only point
we agree on is that spanking is not needed to discipline kids--beyond
that they beat the drum for their singular cause (spanking = child
abuse---no matter what and parents who use it should be punished).

Your definition does not apply to everyone in this ng that disagrees
with you, Chris. That is only one point some of us make. We have other
points we make as well. And punishment is not universally agreed upon
by us.

Notice how often one of us mentions the Swedish model...their law
against child abuse. Then recall what the "punishment" is for breaking
the law in Sweden.

***I would like to add that they owe an apology to those adults who
grew up with "real" abuse (as in most current legal definitions).

No we don't. Not a single person here that is against the practice of
assaulting children and calling it CP, or "spanking," has ever
minimized or otherwise denied the difference.

Their attempt to fuzz the lines does great disservice to you and all
those who have been harmed.

WE have not attempted to "fuzz the lines" the least bit. In fact I've
requested repeatedly that YOU folks clarify the line...which by it's
nature and reality IS FUZZY. Even the law cannot and has not clarified
the line between child abuse and acceptable corporal punishment.

In time, as law makers in other countries have done, if YOU and YOUR
cohorts do not stop defending child assault and make a moral choice
to end it, law makers here will come to see that there IS NO
LINE...that the use of pain and humiliation for parenting IS
assaultive..and the reason we have laws to protect adults from assault
are exactly the same reason we should not assault children.

Because it is immoral, and it proven to not work.

I would also like to see poster return to
the n.g. that have been chased off by the bullying tactics of this
group (they have violated and continue to do so most rules of
netiquette).

We have stood up to the bullying tactics of you and your cohort.
Fighting back is not bullying. You are, by your willingness to allow
and support parental choice to assault their children, a complicite
bully.

I'm sure they have used these type of tactics in their
own homes, with their families (and friends).

How can you be sure, other than to make a veiled by obvious personal
attack on them by that statement and claim? The behavior of a bully.

I learned as a child there is only one cure for a bully who will not
listen to reason, logic, and exhortation to stop.....kick their butt
thoroughly. Then switch to the more civilized offerings to discuss the
issue.

We do not advocate their
example...

Then why did you just do it, and why do those in your camp use ad hom
and lies?

Fern is the most blatant example of a liar, Doan of an ad hom name
caller.

And you, of a slimy word twister that pretends to saintliness while
using ad hom yourself, as you are doing in this post.

A few of your cohort's various attacks, lies, and immoral rants:

Doan:
"I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)"

In another, I accused him of dodging a question...by a device you are
using now....I said "Dodger." He replied with:

"Stupid dog! :-)"

I then said he was behaving like a child, calling him "little boy."

He replied with:

"You don't see them hurling obscenities, do you stupid dog? :-0"

See the lies and escalation of ad hom? He's an obvious bully.

I stated:

When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in
honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You
haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty.

He replied:
"I used your logic against you, stupid dog! ;-)"

This is a tiny sample, by the way, the last three entries from just
ONE post, of hundreds and hundreds of posts by Doan that shows who is
and isn't the bully in these exchanges.

Fern has posted 295 posts with LaVonne as the subject...and I found
none that were not derisive, and few that did not contain lies
concerning LaVonne.

Then there was this silly twit:
"
From: )
Subject: Reply to Chris C

View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 2001-11-19 10:15:43 PST

Little osama dugan is crabwalking about as fast as his
namesake.....The
little weasel is clearly on the run and here's a classic portrait him
"
LaChrissie went on for hundreds of such posts, obviously obsessed with
Chris D. and your cohort's inability to defeat his logic and facts.

Observer, "LaChrissie," and other abusive twits long gone from here
have similar posting histories.

YOU Chris C, have posted the following comments:

From your most recent putting words in LaVonne's mouth, "'Everybody
Look at Me'"

To;

"The clique displays obsessive tendencies"
"waiving her somewhat tattered diploma"

To making unproven, bogus claims about me and my posting:
"
-Mind reading

-Making up histories of posters and backgrounds

-Placing his words and actions on others

-Misrepresenting the data

-Misrepresenting other posters
"

None of which I do, and exactly what YOU do.

To this lie (Gowtch) and ad hom (Chris Dugan) combined:

"
It's nice to see the only "ex-cohort" (thrown out for his usual
behavior) member back spewing forth his rantings for which he knows
nothing! I hope he follows up with some choice phrases as usual (I
still think he's Chris Duggie in hiding).
"

and;

"
Fern--This is the classic moron Kane talking his typical tripe below.
No response is even needed. He doesn't warrant one. He reminds me of
Ivan (maybe it is). This needs to be crossposted just so others
(cohort included---because they wouldn't even have him) won't waist
[sic] their time or energy on him. He doesn't even matter in the
equation (I believe they call that "less than zero").
"

And Chris C., these all came from just the sequential first 7 or 8 of
the hits in google when I clicked on your addy. You post like this
constantly. You cannot post without ad hom and lies, apparently. And
hom and facts would be interesting and colorful. But lies? Tsk.

They support full equal--political, social rights for kids and have
posted as much.

Nonsense. A simple lie. No such advocacy has happened. What has
happened is that the "cohort" individuals have each expressed their
own views. For instance some are for laws against spanking. I,
personally am not, and stated so, and given the reasons why not many
times.

Some are for some punitive child teaching, I happen to not be. Some
are to a degree and others less.

You are clearly a bigot..by the use of classifying us into a group so
you can belittle and insinuate as less grand than you. Trying to make
a connection to our claims, statements, arguments, debate, that is not
up to your lofty ideals of reasoned discussion of this issue.

As I said you are a phony. Here's some more for folks to see what you
are really up to, and your lack of ethics:

Taking my statement out of context, by unethical snipping, you
commented:
"
His intellect is obviously limited so
he feels the need to add such verbiage to legitimize his lack of
scholarship. -Keep posting.-Chris
"
"As you have already figured out by now that Kane is a member of the
notorious "think-a-likes" that camp out here in this ng. Many of us
refer to them as the"cohort" because of their love of the fight. They
can't see that the narrow focus of their agenda will actually harm
parents and families in the long-term. Keep giving them hell (they
deserve it for the neophyte propaganda they push).-Chris
"
"
Fern--it's sad to say that these cases are all to often allowed to
occur. Of course the rights of any individual, according to the
"cohort', doesn't compare to even 1 child receiving a single swat (I
remember reading a post like this from several members of that liberal
elitist group).
"

Rather than go on with this sad litany of your phoniness let's take a
closer look at your more recent attempt to "take the high ground" from
those you call, "the cohort."

You, who claim to be a researcher and degreed scholar......posted the
work of another without citation and credit, so it might appear to the
reader as your own work..did you not?

All you did was leave off the last two suggestions. Was that supposed
to allow you to take others intellectual property? Not without a
citation it's not.

YOU, allowed to read other's work for scholarly content? R R R R R R

Now go and apologize to Ms. Coutu

Positive Discipline: 50 Principles & Alternatives to Punishment
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm

That's our name calling twit, Chris C. A LAZY TAKER OF OTHER'S WORK.

Do you bring this same ethical standing to your arguments with those
you disagree with here?

Keep an eye on them in your community they have no
practical understanding of what they propose.

Who among us have you ever seen steal another's work deliberately and
post it unattributed, with the assumption or implication very possibly
made by the reader, that it was our own work? Who needs watching?

Parents are the true
advocates of their children---not neo-social constructionist.

I'm stunned by your fair mindedness, and your lack of name calling and
blaming.

I've never seen a single poster here, as you insinuate above, that you
refer to as "the cohort" and "they," claim that parents aren't the
best advocate for their children.

Their argument, that you attempt to change by putting words and
political motivations on them they have not said or is exhibited by
any of us.

"The cohort," and "they," have argued that some parents are not good
advocates for their children. And some are not, obviously, as some
have abused, neglected, and killed their own children.

Usually we referred to abusive parents, and of course, to parents that
are not logically clear about the connection between hitting and
spanking and assault.

That is the central argument here, and you attempt to reframe it into
a bogus argument. Who needs watching here?

I DO consider them, and you, as poor advocates for children.

By the way, what is it in the belief of ending assault of children
extrapolates to the larger question of social reform?

Does this mean you are against social reform? That IS, as far as I can
tell, all that "neo-" as in "new," "social" as in "society," and
"constructionist," as in "builder," could mean, unless of course you
were name calling...a practice you claim is the exclusive game of "the
cohort."

By the way, the website you "borrowed" the list of parenting
disciplines from:

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm ,

Bills itself as "The Web Site that Brings Attention to the Human
Rights of Young People," A quick read of the site shows it to be
exactly what you attempt to use as a derisive attack on "the cohort."

And among the comments on the use of punishment is this short sentence
of description: "Physically and verbally violent and aggressive."

You should read Ms Coutre's personal info page at:

http://www.childadvocate.org/6a.htm

And her position on CP:

At http://www.childadvocate.org/1a.htm

"
Definitions
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

Corporal Punishment is any action on the part of an adult or caretaker
that intentionally inflicts, or causes to result, pain or
physiological discomfort in a person under the age of 18 for the
purposes of punishment or containment. Corporal punishment is
generally referred to as spanking, slapping, smacking, hitting or
paddling a child in a way that does not meet the legal requirements
for a definition of child abuse. However, corporal punishment also
includes: Biting, shaking, shoving or pulling a child; denying,
restricting or rationing a child's use of the toilet; denying any
other physiological need or forcing physical exertion and fixed
positions as a means of punishment or containment.
"

By the way, your combining of the last three "principles" into a
single one, does not constitute a defensible taking of others work and
not citing them with credit...as in:

"
Principle #49: Honor a child's need for autonomy and power over some
aspects of his/her decisions- let them make decisions where
appropriate

Principle #50: Above all, treat all children with dignity and respect
by refraining from using negative, punitive and violent methods of
control- Use positive methods that promote critical thinking and show
love, caring, empathy, understanding and patience towards all children
"

I suspect you jambed the together to confuse the readers perception of
what they really say....for they clearly say, "don't spank."

When you a looking for parenting principles to list to attempt to take
the moral highground in this debate, Chris C., you might want to avoid
someone that has the strong opinions of "the cohort" you attempt to
ridicule and bully by these tactics of yours.

You are really funny, Chris C. and of course a three dollar bill.

This post is just one in a series of attempts from time to time from
you to try and legitimize you and your little "cohort." Sorry. No
cigar. Anyone that can read can figure you out in a moment, unless
they to suffer from the compulsion to assault children, or defend
others doing so.

Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

....the phony. You aren't one of those texans given to exaggeration,
are yah,
Chris C.?

TX

Kane

Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you like
to see yourself talk. You seem to modify posts to fit your personal
needs and use the approach you accuse others of. I've never been
spanked but you are a fool! You either like yourself very much or even
hate yourself (are you by chance bi-polar?).-Jim



Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

...th

Kane,

Thank you for posting the websites below. Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps
is a wonderful website. Not all Christians do aggree with assaulting
children and calling it love. There are many fundamentalist, born-again
Christians that hitting or hurting children in any way in the name of
discipline. These individuals are becoming more vocal and their numbers
are growing.

LaVonne

kane wrote:

On 12 Nov 2004 08:22:34 -0800, (Chris C.) wrote:

..........and posted, obviously trolling for support, to
alt.christian.religion...

You'll find, Chris C., that not all Christians agree with assaulting
children and calling it "love."

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
http://stoptherod.net/


In the absence of any regular advice --here is some that doesn't
support punishing parents who don't follow them to the letter.

-Special notes to new posters: I do not support the reform of
reasonable force statutes


There is no such thing as "reasonable force statutes" regarding
corporal punishment of children. "reasonable force" is a statutory
concept relating to criminal law regarding the use of force in
situations where one is protecting self or others. It is used to judge
the use of force by police...who, by the way, are only allowed to use
force in three ways; to arrest someone's progress who resists, to
protect the officer, and to protect the suspect or others.

Police are not allowed by law to use force to "punish" as in "corporal
punishment." Any such attempt is prosecutable as "assault"
except.....in the instance of a parent assaulting a child physically.

Morally this is recognized in many nations as assault and a crime.
While I do not, at this time, presuming my neighbors and fellow
citizens to be morally progressive and cabable of responding to ethics
and logic in argument, support the use of statute to correct this very
sick practice of spanking.


that lead to punitive measures for parents
who may use discipline within the current legal limits (this would
include but is not limited to physical restraint to protect a child

from harm of self or others).

How does spanking "physically restrain"[t] a child? That is,
ostensibly, not it's purpose. Or it wouldn't be labeled as corporal
"punishment."

You are confusing one with the other to obscure the issue of spanking
being the moral equivalent of assault.

Your logic is badly flawed and you have not progressed, personally,
for as long as I've seen you post here. You fail to defend your
so-called
"choice" and you have failed logically repeatedly to defend spanking
as not being assaultive.


-also do not post any personal information on this site. Often
participants in this n.g. will use/abuse the information and conti

nue

to do so if you return.


Interestingly I find that you and your cronies are most often the
perpetrators of such abuse.

Upon my first visit to the ng a couple of years back I was stunned to
see Chris Dugan, who I could find NO posts written by the used ad hom
in any of his arguments, being repeatedly and viciously attacked by a
whole slew of low-lifes such as you (I'm not as polite as Chris D.)
From "LaChrissy" to YOU, to Fern, to Observer, to Doan and the
occasional asshole troll.

You, Chris C., are a phony. And any google of your posting history
here makes it plain you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You
pretend to an ethic you do not practice, and try to project your own
sick attacks as being done TO you rather than BY you.


48 Suggestions:


R R R ... in it's original, it is "Positive Discipline: 50 Principles
& Alternatives to Punishment"


Positive Discipline: 48 Principles & Alternatives to Punishment


Principle #1: Decode the message behind the misbehavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #2: Understand WHY the behavior is occurring


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #3: Help the child calm down by staying calm and speaking
calmly


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #4: Explain to the child how his/her behavior affects

others

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #5: If possible, alter the precipitating factors that led

to

the behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #6: Discuss together a non-punitive consequence for the
behavior that is logical to the behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And what the hell is a "non-punitive consequence?" A hug? I doubt you
assholes that obvious hate, distrust, and are frightened by little
children have it in you to respond to unwanted behavior with positive
consequences...though I've proven again and again, and taught others
how to do it, even with children that were so far gone that they were
diagnosed as mentally ill.


Principle #7: Carry out what you promised to carry out when you
promised to do so


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #8: Do not nag, lecture, threaten or use sarcasm


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #9: Praise efforts and reward success


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #10: If the behavior begins to occur again, give a reminder
of why the behavior is not appropriate- you will need to be

consistent

over time


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #11: Unless the behavior involves harming self, others or
property, give three warnings "1,2,3..."


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #12: Immediately follow through with the consequence with a
brief restating of the infraction in a firm (but friendly) tone


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #13: Discuss with the child what occurred, why it wasn't
acceptable and how it can be prevented in the future.


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #14: Let the child voice his/her feelings freely without
judgment


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #15: Help the child to understand that he/she is a good,
acceptable person and that the behavior, not the child, is
unacceptable- accept young people unconditionally regardless of their
behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #16: Remember what it was like to be at the child's age.
Refrain from tacking adult meanings and connotations onto childish
behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #17: Read up on child and adolescent development and find
out if what you are expecting is developmentally appropriate- or if
the misbehavior is age-appropriate behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #18: Understand each child's individual capabilities, needs
and circumstances and modify your expectations and approaches
accordingly


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #19: If the child has multiple negative behaviors, only
focus on modifying those that are most destructive to self, others

and

property


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #20: Empower children with acceptable choices- don't just
tell them what they CAN'T do- give them acceptable alternatives


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #21: Use re-direction, distraction and selective ignoring
for minor infractions


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #22: Use of the toilet should be viewed as a necessary
right, not a privilege- promote health and healthy attitudes towards
the body by honoring this right- if children misuse the bathroom pass
in school, have them use the toilet in the nurse's office for one

week

as a consequence


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #23: Decode the need the child is trying to meet by his/her
misbehavior and help them meet that need by acceptable means


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #24: If the child is out of control, guide them to a quiet
area to calm down before discussing the problem


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #25: If a child must be placed in a "time out", do not
impose a time limit- let the child come out when he/she is ready-
never leave a young child unsupervised- never close a child into a
frightening room- do not banish the child


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #26: If the child comes out of a "time out" prematurely,
state that it looks as if he/she is ready to behave appropriately and
give them that chance- avoid forcing them back in unless the behavior
starts up again


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #27: Children often misbehave when they lack attention-

give

them the attention they need and deserve- including hugging, patting
the back, ruffling the hair, high fives, etc.


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #28: Rather than give "do not" messages, state what you
would like to see instead


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #29: If physical restraint is necessary to avoid an attack
against the self or others, do so progressively, in stages beginning
with a verbal warning, increased physical proximity, followed by a
hand on the shoulder and then a gentle hand on the arm, progressing
with as little restraint as possible to keep the child from harming
self or others


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #30: If the child shows lack of attention and restlessness,
evaluate whether the activities you provide are stimulating,

exciting,

involving and appropriate to the learning style and intelligence

needs

of the child


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #31: Discuss the importance of verbalizing feelings rather
than acting on impulses- model this!


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #32: Model the behaviors you want to see your children
emulate


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #33: Do not engage in conduct that you don't allow in your
children


Then I can't have sex with consenting adults, smoke, drink alcohol,
cross the street by myself, or stay out after curfew. Get real you
simp.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #34: If your child has consistent behavioral problems do
your best to alleviate the causes- enforce only necessary limits and
cut away unnecessary rules and inflexible ways of doing things


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #35: Teach and model positive, healthy guilt and remorse
that leads to restitution and responsibility- teach and model good
social skills


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #36: Never shame, belittle or humiliate your child- help
them build a positive self-image and a healthy self-esteem


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #37: Admit when you've made mistakes and apologize to your
child


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #38: Teach and model that violence is not acceptable,
including that it is never acceptable for adults to hit children


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #39: Be involved with the media your child is viewing and
discuss what they see and why it is positive or negative


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #40: The rule about gaining respect is to earn it- you earn
it from a child by giving it to them


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #41: Help a frequently errant child succeed by giving
him/her small steps towards a goal that ensures success- never give

up

on a kid!


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #42: Do guide children and do not leave them to regulate
their own behavior- children feel unsafe when there are no limits at
all- spend more time with them


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #43: Tune in to, rather than ignore, physical and verbal
cues that something is bothering a child


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #44: Deescalate a problem before the child gets out of
control- be aware of the warning signs of escalating behavior


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #45: Treat boys with the same dignity and caring, gentle,
loving concern that you treat girls with- do not discipline boys for

a

behavior that you allow girls to get away with- do not tolerate

sexist

attitudes in girls that you wouldn't allow boys to get away with- do
not put gender restrictions on toys, emotions, hobbies and activities


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #46: Avoid power struggles and verbal fights with older
kids- negotiate democratically when possible


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #47: Honor a child's need for autonomy and power over some
aspects of his/her decisions- let them make decisions where
appropriate


And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


Principle #48: Above all, treat all children with dignity and respect
by refraining from using negative, punitive and violent methods of
control- Use positive methods that promote critical thinking and show
love, caring, empathy, understanding and patience towards all

children

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?


--I'm interested in hearing from those of you who are not supportive
of the "cohort" agenda to punish parents through revoking the
reasonable force statutes on the books.


There are not "reasonable force" statutes regarding parent child
discipline. CP is CP.

Here in TX we are keeping an

eye on them when they try to harm families by extending the control

of

laws to further limit family rights and by putting kids at greater
risk through the use of spurious data/research.--I am not interested
in any
contact with the"cohort"


What is a 'cohort'?"


and have
boycotted any conversations with them for several years now.


You are a reasonable then in your "debate" of the subject as all the
other little dim twits that show up here and move on because they fail
to put forward logic and ethical argument. In other words they fail to
defend the practice of spanking as a reasonable means of treating
children.


Their
agenda is all to obvious and very harmful to families.


The making of peaceful families that do not use pain and humiliation
is not a harmful agenda.


--The only point
we agree on is that spanking is not needed to discipline kids--beyond
that they beat the drum for their singular cause (spanking = child
abuse---no matter what and parents who use it should be punished).


Your definition does not apply to everyone in this ng that disagrees
with you, Chris. That is only one point some of us make. We have other
points we make as well. And punishment is not universally agreed upon
by us.

Notice how often one of us mentions the Swedish model...their law
against child abuse. Then recall what the "punishment" is for breaking
the law in Sweden.

***I would like to add that they owe an apology to those adults who
grew up with "real" abuse (as in most current legal definitions).


No we don't. Not a single person here that is against the practice of
assaulting children and calling it CP, or "spanking," has ever
minimized or otherwise denied the difference.


Their attempt to fuzz the lines does great disservice to you and all
those who have been harmed.


WE have not attempted to "fuzz the lines" the least bit. In fact I've
requested repeatedly that YOU folks clarify the line...which by it's
nature and reality IS FUZZY. Even the law cannot and has not clarified
the line between child abuse and acceptable corporal punishment.

In time, as law makers in other countries have done, if YOU and YOUR
cohorts do not stop defending child assault and make a moral choice
to end it, law makers here will come to see that there IS NO
LINE...that the use of pain and humiliation for parenting IS
assaultive..and the reason we have laws to protect adults from assault
are exactly the same reason we should not assault children.

Because it is immoral, and it proven to not work.


I would also like to see poster return to
the n.g. that have been chased off by the bullying tactics of this
group (they have violated and continue to do so most rules of
netiquette).


We have stood up to the bullying tactics of you and your cohort.
Fighting back is not bullying. You are, by your willingness to allow
and support parental choice to assault their children, a complicite
bully.


I'm sure they have used these type of tactics in their
own homes, with their families (and friends).


How can you be sure, other than to make a veiled by obvious personal
attack on them by that statement and claim? The behavior of a bully.

I learned as a child there is only one cure for a bully who will not
listen to reason, logic, and exhortation to stop.....kick their butt
thoroughly. Then switch to the more civilized offerings to discuss the
issue.


We do not advocate their
example...


Then why did you just do it, and why do those in your camp use ad hom
and lies?

Fern is the most blatant example of a liar, Doan of an ad hom name
caller.

And you, of a slimy word twister that pretends to saintliness while
using ad hom yourself, as you are doing in this post.

A few of your cohort's various attacks, lies, and immoral rants:

Doan:
"I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study. You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)"

In another, I accused him of dodging a question...by a device you are
using now....I said "Dodger." He replied with:

"Stupid dog! :-)"

I then said he was behaving like a child, calling him "little boy."

He replied with:

"You don't see them hurling obscenities, do you stupid dog? :-0"

See the lies and escalation of ad hom? He's an obvious bully.

I stated:


When you took on answering the question your answers, as always in
honest debate, became YOUR responsibility to provide proof. You
haven't. You've simply sited other poor examples of logic and honesty.


He replied:
"I used your logic against you, stupid dog! ;-)"

This is a tiny sample, by the way, the last three entries from just
ONE post, of hundreds and hundreds of posts by Doan that shows who is
and isn't the bully in these exchanges.

Fern has posted 295 posts with LaVonne as the subject...and I found
none that were not derisive, and few that did not contain lies
concerning LaVonne.

Then there was this silly twit:
"
From: )
Subject: Reply to Chris C

View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 2001-11-19 10:15:43 PST

Little osama dugan is crabwalking about as fast as his
namesake.....The
little weasel is clearly on the run and here's a classic portrait him
"
LaChrissie went on for hundreds of such posts, obviously obsessed with
Chris D. and your cohort's inability to defeat his logic and facts.

Observer, "LaChrissie," and other abusive twits long gone from here
have similar posting histories.

YOU Chris C, have posted the following comments:

From your most recent putting words in LaVonne's mouth, "'Everybody
Look at Me'"

To;

"The clique displays obsessive tendencies"
"waiving her somewhat tattered diploma"

To making unproven, bogus claims about me and my posting:
"
-Mind reading

-Making up histories of posters and backgrounds

-Placing his words and actions on others

-Misrepresenting the data

-Misrepresenting other posters
"

None of which I do, and exactly what YOU do.

To this lie (Gowtch) and ad hom (Chris Dugan) combined:

"
It's nice to see the only "ex-cohort" (thrown out for his usual
behavior) member back spewing forth his rantings for which he knows
nothing! I hope he follows up with some choice phrases as usual (I
still think he's Chris Duggie in hiding).
"

and;

"
Fern--This is the classic moron Kane talking his typical tripe below.
No response is even needed. He doesn't warrant one. He reminds me of
Ivan (maybe it is). This needs to be crossposted just so others
(cohort included---because they wouldn't even have him) won't waist
[sic] their time or energy on him. He doesn't even matter in the
equation (I believe they call that "less than zero").
"

And Chris C., these all came from just the sequential first 7 or 8 of
the hits in google when I clicked on your addy. You post like this
constantly. You cannot post without ad hom and lies, apparently. And
hom and facts would be interesting and colorful. But lies? Tsk.


They support full equal--political, social rights for kids and have
posted as much.


Nonsense. A simple lie. No such advocacy has happened. What has
happened is that the "cohort" individuals have each expressed their
own views. For instance some are for laws against spanking. I,
personally am not, and stated so, and given the reasons why not many
times.

Some are for some punitive child teaching, I happen to not be. Some
are to a degree and others less.

You are clearly a bigot..by the use of classifying us into a group so
you can belittle and insinuate as less grand than you. Trying to make
a connection to our claims, statements, arguments, debate, that is not
up to your lofty ideals of reasoned discussion of this issue.

As I said you are a phony. Here's some more for folks to see what you
are really up to, and your lack of ethics:

Taking my statement out of context, by unethical snipping, you
commented:
"
His intellect is obviously limited so
he feels the need to add such verbiage to legitimize his lack of
scholarship. -Keep posting.-Chris
"
"As you have already figured out by now that Kane is a member of the
notorious "think-a-likes" that camp out here in this ng. Many of us
refer to them as the"cohort" because of their love of the fight. They
can't see that the narrow focus of their agenda will actually harm
parents and families in the long-term. Keep giving them hell (they
deserve it for the neophyte propaganda they push).-Chris
"
"
Fern--it's sad to say that these cases are all to often allowed to
occur. Of course the rights of any individual, according to the
"cohort', doesn't compare to even 1 child receiving a single swat (I
remember reading a post like this from several members of that liberal
elitist group).
"

Rather than go on with this sad litany of your phoniness let's take a
closer look at your more recent attempt to "take the high ground" from
those you call, "the cohort."

You, who claim to be a researcher and degreed scholar......posted the
work of another without citation and credit, so it might appear to the
reader as your own work..did you not?

All you did was leave off the last two suggestions. Was that supposed
to allow you to take others intellectual property? Not without a
citation it's not.

YOU, allowed to read other's work for scholarly content? R R R R R R

Now go and apologize to Ms. Coutu

Positive Discipline: 50 Principles & Alternatives to Punishment
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm

That's our name calling twit, Chris C. A LAZY TAKER OF OTHER'S WORK.

Do you bring this same ethical standing to your arguments with those
you disagree with here?


Keep an eye on them in your community they have no
practical understanding of what they propose.


Who among us have you ever seen steal another's work deliberately and
post it unattributed, with the assumption or implication very possibly
made by the reader, that it was our own work? Who needs watching?


Parents are the true
advocates of their children---not neo-social constructionist.


I'm stunned by your fair mindedness, and your lack of name calling and
blaming.

I've never seen a single poster here, as you insinuate above, that you
refer to as "the cohort" and "they," claim that parents aren't the
best advocate for their children.

Their argument, that you attempt to change by putting words and
political motivations on them they have not said or is exhibited by
any of us.

"The cohort," and "they," have argued that some parents are not good
advocates for their children. And some are not, obviously, as some
have abused, neglected, and killed their own children.

Usually we referred to abusive parents, and of course, to parents that
are not logically clear about the connection between hitting and
spanking and assault.

That is the central argument here, and you attempt to reframe it into
a bogus argument. Who needs watching here?

I DO consider them, and you, as poor advocates for children.

By the way, what is it in the belief of ending assault of children
extrapolates to the larger question of social reform?

Does this mean you are against social reform? That IS, as far as I can
tell, all that "neo-" as in "new," "social" as in "society," and
"constructionist," as in "builder," could mean, unless of course you
were name calling...a practice you claim is the exclusive game of "the
cohort."

By the way, the website you "borrowed" the list of parenting
disciplines from:

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm ,

Bills itself as "The Web Site that Brings Attention to the Human
Rights of Young People," A quick read of the site shows it to be
exactly what you attempt to use as a derisive attack on "the cohort."

And among the comments on the use of punishment is this short sentence
of description: "Physically and verbally violent and aggressive."

You should read Ms Coutre's personal info page at:

http://www.childadvocate.org/6a.htm

And her position on CP:

At http://www.childadvocate.org/1a.htm

"
Definitions
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

Corporal Punishment is any action on the part of an adult or caretaker
that intentionally inflicts, or causes to result, pain or
physiological discomfort in a person under the age of 18 for the
purposes of punishment or containment. Corporal punishment is
generally referred to as spanking, slapping, smacking, hitting or
paddling a child in a way that does not meet the legal requirements
for a definition of child abuse. However, corporal punishment also
includes: Biting, shaking, shoving or pulling a child; denying,
restricting or rationing a child's use of the toilet; denying any
other physiological need or forcing physical exertion and fixed
positions as a means of punishment or containment.
"

By the way, your combining of the last three "principles" into a
single one, does not constitute a defensible taking of others work and
not citing them with credit...as in:

"
Principle #49: Honor a child's need for autonomy and power over some
aspects of his/her decisions- let them make decisions where
appropriate

Principle #50: Above all, treat all children with dignity and respect
by refraining from using negative, punitive and violent methods of
control- Use positive methods that promote critical thinking and show
love, caring, empathy, understanding and patience towards all children
"

I suspect you jambed the together to confuse the readers perception of
what they really say....for they clearly say, "don't spank."

When you a looking for parenting principles to list to attempt to take
the moral highground in this debate, Chris C., you might want to avoid
someone that has the strong opinions of "the cohort" you attempt to
ridicule and bully by these tactics of yours.

You are really funny, Chris C. and of course a three dollar bill.

This post is just one in a series of attempts from time to time from
you to try and legitimize you and your little "cohort." Sorry. No
cigar. Anyone that can read can figure you out in a moment, unless
they to suffer from the compulsion to assault children, or defend
others doing so.


Non-spanker by choice


How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"


Chris C.


...the phony. You aren't one of those texans given to exaggeration,
are yah,
Chris C.?


TX


Kane

Jim,

Kane has been a regular poster on alt.parenting.spanking for years, as
have I. While Kane and I have a different posting style, I have yet to
read a post from him that demonstrates anything other than the utmost
respect for children.

LaVonne

jcalhoun wrote:

Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you like
to see yourself talk. You seem to modify posts to fit your personal
needs and use the approach you accuse others of. I've never been
spanked but you are a fool! You either like yourself very much or even
hate yourself (are you by chance bi-polar?).-Jim



Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"


Chris C.

...th

jcalhoun wrote:

Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you like
to see yourself talk.
----------------
You're just a impotently defensive spanker who can't handle the Truth.
Quit the ad hominem, get back on topic and prove that you actually
have something to say, and are not merely an ignorant knee-jerk!
Steve


Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

...th

Jim--You'll have to excuse the name calling clique here. They don't
won't new posters entering their private propaganda domain. In their
world if you don't prosecute parents who may have spanked a child then
they will attack you rather than welcome you to this n.g.

It is my hope you will continue to post here regardless of their
rantings. BTW I strongly agree with your assertion with regards to
kane (lower case intentional). Please continue to exercise your free
will (and right) here. Many non-spankers post here that don't agree
with the fascist approach! Welcome...

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX


(jcalhoun) wrote in message . com...
Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you like
to see yourself talk. You seem to modify posts to fit your personal
needs and use the approach you accuse others of. I've never been
spanked but you are a fool! You either like yourself very much or even
hate yourself (are you by chance bi-polar?).-Jim



Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

...th

On 13 Nov 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (jcalhoun) wrote:

Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you
like
to see yourself talk.

Yes. I do. I have an affinity for truth and clarity. What with being
outnumbered it sometimes takes much more "talk" to deal with all the
many issues and delusions raised by the loonies.

You seem to modify posts to fit your personal
needs

I have never in all my posting, and it must be in the thousands, even
changed a single word of another's posts. Show me the modifications
you charge me with?

I am even careful in my posting method that includes line by line
responses, to NOT change the meaning of their claims and comments.

Many that post in opposition to my arguments do EXACTLY what you claim
I'm doing...they do it by snipping entire posts of mine, leaving a
single phrase out of context pretending that that was my meaning. They
often do not even attribute my post in full or part at all, and reply
as though I had taken a stand I had not.

and use the approach you accuse others of.

As I said. Show me my modifying of other's posts.

I've never been
spanked but you are a fool!

I have a sneaking hunch you are lying..but we'll see.

You either like yourself very much or even
hate yourself (are you by chance bi-polar?).-Jim

I like myself very well indeed. Others who know me appear to as well,
rather a lot of them. It comes from learning gentle parenting methods,
and being raised by them.

Please continue. I want to see how I modify other's posts to change
their meaning...rarely ever snipping, and having never snipped without
clear notice...and then only material unrelated to the debate.

And I have never changed a single word of another's posts...ever.

Those that make such a claim appear to me to be, unless they can prove
their claim, liars.

Have at it, "Jim"




Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your
home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater
by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

...th

On 14 Nov 2004 04:49:00 -0800, (Chris C.) wrote:

Jim--You'll have to excuse the name calling clique here.

Beg pardon? You are a name caller-ad hom user, asshole.

They don't
won't new posters entering their private propaganda domain.

This is an unmoderated newsgroup. They can come or go without any
restrictions whatsoever. I LOVE to have pro spank compulsives come
here. How shall I expose them for what they really are if they don't?

As for "propaganda domain," you are one of the prime propagandists
posting here.

In their
world

Same one you are in. Jim is welcome. If he can stand the heat and is
interested in debate, which seems unlikely given that his first post
was an attack, I'm here and willing...and I've just invited him to
prove his ad hom attack as a friendly opening response. Once that's
cleared up we can begin.

if you don't prosecute parents who may have spanked a child then
they will attack you rather than welcome you to this n.g.

As "Jim" was addressing me, and with ad hom in his first post, I have
to assume you include me in your claim, I defy you to turn up ONE post
that I advocate prosecution of parents for having "spanked."

I have made it a point to research and post here the fact that there
isn't a single state (Minn might be a slimly possible exception by a
quirk of wording in statute) where spanking is illegal...and I have
stated repeatedly that I am not an advocate for a law that includes
punishment of the parent.

I have cited the Swedish law from time to time as an example, and it
has no penalty for offenders. It meets my criteria for a moral
appeal..as I believe is possible in this country. I'm wondering if I
wasn't naive, seeing your resistance to moral suasion.

You are posting lies about me; propagandizing as usual.

It is my hope you will continue to post here regardless of their
rantings.

Me too, but did you notice, the first post from "Jim" is ad hom?

BTW I strongly agree with your assertion with regards to
kane (lower case intentional).

Certainly not an ad hom attempt, is it now. R R R R

Being clever about concealing your attacks doesn't give you a morally
superior position to someone that attacks in an overt and honest open
fashion. It just marks you as a sneak, not an uncommon survival
reaction among those who were spanked.

Please continue to exercise your free
will (and right) here.

Did you see me disinvite "Jim" to this ng? In fact my most recent post
to him invited him to PROVE HIS AD HOM claim.

This goes to the reality of you twits...claiming moral superiority
while all the while exercising your mealy-mouthed duplicitious
attacks. You are a sneak.

Many non-spankers post here that don't agree
with the fascist approach! Welcome...

That's odd. I just saw you post a long venting diatribe claiming
something the opposite of that...that we are all vicious attackers.

Yer nothing if not a hypocrite, Chris C.

By the way, you have 24 hours to get that permission from the author,
or give her an apology and post it here, before I advise her of your
plagarizm.

Non-spanker by choice,

It's easy to not eat pie if you have no pie.

So what's remarkable about your being a "Non-spanker, by choice?"

It doesn't look so hot when you defend other's right to do to children
what is illegal to do to an adult.

Chris C.
TX

Kane



(jcalhoun) wrote in message . com...
Mr. Kane--after looking through many of your posts it appears you
like
to see yourself talk. You seem to modify posts to fit your personal
needs and use the approach you accuse others of. I've never been
spanked but you are a fool! You either like yourself very much or
even
hate yourself (are you by chance bi-polar?).-Jim



Non-spanker by choice

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your
home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream
eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

Chris C.

...th

Pastor Dave wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 16:31:32 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, "Kane"
pontificated:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
You say, "Spanking your kids is not child abuse" (see your post
below)

Spanking involves raising one's hand and hitting a child, with or
without an implement, in the name of discipline.

In the US, striking anyone over the age of 18 for any reason other
than
self-protection when there is no other alternative, is considered
assault and battery. Every state in the US has a clause that
exempts

children from this legal protection.

Are you assaulting your children when you spank them? I think so.
When
adults are legally protected from action considered abusive, and
children are exempt from that protection, I would have to conclude
that
when you spank children you are abusing children.

LaVonne

But LaVonne, the poster is simply claiming it's not abuse. And of
course the use of CP (including spanking) is not abuse. I have it
both
from a man of God, as some of the posters here claim they are, and
apparently somewhere in the New Testament,

Actually, the Old Testament.

Do you think the New Testament then was not the new way to follow,
under Christ? What in Christ's message said to follow the ways of the
old testament? And what did he say regarding those that would hurt
children?

Do the words "sea bottom" and "millstone" bring anything to mind,
Pastor?

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the
rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
- Proverbs 22:15

And the Hebrew word for"rod"is actually the same word used in the
O.T. for tribe, scepter, and authority. First used in Genesis 49:10.
And it is also used for a shepherds staff. That is not used to beat the
sheep, but to protect and guide them.


"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou
beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
- Proverbs 23:13

And these are from the Proverbs of who? I have a hunch the
interpretation of "beatest" might well be open to interpretation as
well.

In fact, even what a "child" is has been examined in the context of The
OT usage. Age being the critical issue. The hebrew words used for
"child" differ according to age. And very much the circumstances.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/moodyfa...nclusions.html
Have you read Laurie Moody's essay on her study of this issue of
biblical discipline? Do. The answer's you are coming up with for
Christian's are anything but universally accepted by them. Some reject
it vehemently, with good cause. The live the New Testament, as was
intended.

The old, was a story. The new, a way of life.

Was Solomon not the most ghastly despot in the Old Testament? One who
raised a son himself so harshly that when that son came to the throne,
and exercised his revenge over his fathers cruel upbringing on his own
people so despotically, the people ran him out?

Do you doubt in the least, for instance, given what we know of Solomon,
that he would NOT have had the guard cleave the child in two had the
two women both held their tongues?

And you wish to follow HIS proverbs?

Is there a personage in the Old Testament more damaging to and in
conflict over the relationship between parents and children than him?
Can you say he cared for children or their rights in any way at all?
That he did not consider them disposable other than chattel? And when
he said, or the translators said he said, "child" could he not have
meant a grown son. I still say, "Bill and Mary are my children."

Have a little peek.

http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/18-0001.htm
"
The Proverbs of Solomon
Thy Father and Thy Mother

Proverbs 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of
understanding;
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and
equity;
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and
discretion.

Proverbs 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake
not the law of thy mother:
9 For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains
about thy neck.

Proverbs 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my
commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write
them upon the table of thine heart:
4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God
and man.

Proverbs 3:11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither
be weary of his correction:
12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in
whom he delighteth.

Proverbs 4:1 Hear, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend
to know understanding.
2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
3 For I was my father's son, tender and only beloved in the sight of my
mother.
4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words:
keep my commandments, and live.

Proverbs 4:10 Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of
thy life shall be many.
11 I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right
paths.
12 When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou
runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
13 Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is
thy life.

Proverbs 4:20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my
sayings.
21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine
heart.
22 For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their
flesh.
23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of
life.

Proverbs 5:1 My son, attend unto my wisdom, and bow thine ear to my
understanding:
2 That thou mayest regard discretion, and that thy lips may keep
knowledge.

Proverbs 5:7 Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from
the words of my mouth.

Proverbs 6:20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not
the law of thy mother:
21 Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
22 When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall
keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of
instruction are the way of life:
24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of
a strange woman.

Proverbs 7:1 My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with
thee.
2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.
3 Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart.


Proverbs 7:24 Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend
to the words of my mouth.

Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father:
but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.

Proverbs 13:1 A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a
scorner heareth not rebuke.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that
loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that
regardeth reproof is prudent.

Proverbs 15:20 A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man
despiseth his mother.

Proverbs 16:31 The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in
the way of righteousness.

Proverbs 17:6 Children's children are the crown of old men; and the
glory of children are their fathers.

Proverbs 17:21 He that begetteth a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the
father of a fool hath no joy.

Proverbs 17:25 A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness
to her that bare him.

Proverbs 19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy
soul spare for his crying.

Proverbs 19:26 He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother,
is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach.

Proverbs 20:11 Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be
pure, and whether it be right.
12 The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of
them.

Proverbs 20:20 Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall
be put out in obscure darkness.

Proverbs 20:29 The glory of young men is their strength: and the beauty
of old men is the grey head.

Proverbs 20:30 The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do
stripes the inward parts of the belly.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is
old, he will not depart from it.

Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the
rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou
beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from
hell.

Proverbs 23:15 My son, if thine heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice,
even mine.
16 Yea, my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things.

Proverbs 23:22 Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not
thy mother when she is old.

Proverbs 23:24 The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and
he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.
25 Thy father and thy mother shall be glad, and she that bare thee
shall rejoice.

Proverbs 23:26 My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe
my ways.

Proverbs 27:11 My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, that I may
answer him that reproacheth me.

Proverbs 28:7 Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a
companion of riotous men shameth his father.

Proverbs 28:24 Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is
no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer.

Proverbs 29:3 Whoso loveth wisdom rejoiceth his father: but he that
keepeth company with harlots spendeth his substance.

Proverbs 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to
himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Proverbs 29:17 Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he
shall give delight unto thy soul.

Proverbs 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and
doth not bless their mother.
12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is
not washed from their filthiness.
13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids
are lifted up.

Proverbs 30:17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to
obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the
young eagles shall eat it.
"

Ol' Solomon seemed, if these are chronologically created, to be getting
meaner and crankier and more hatefilled toward children as he aged.

This, Pastor, is a clear testament, where it points to bad behavior by
the son, to how YOUR kind of parenting results in children that do
harm, even to their parents.

It may be saying something entirely the contrary to what you think it
says.

and besides, I'm sure
someone from the Spanking Compulsives Collective can answer the
simple
question:

When does "spanking" become abuse?
x
While anger can and usually will play a role in it,
that anger needs to be checked at a certain point,



You seem unable to understand that I just asked for that exact "point."


as
spanking is for correction and not to satisfy a desire
to get said anger out. Also, if it is done for self
enjoyment, then it is abuse.

Pontificating. Unclear. Typical.

And if the child fails to be corrected by one spanking? Or by a
spanking of fewer strokes? Or by a spanking of less intensity?

What then?


Inquirying minds want to know.

Any of you folks contributing to this or other threads care to help
us
non-spankers, The Cohort of Non-Spankers, understand this better?
Seems
we have some kind of inability to comprehend this simple thing.

There are times when discussion, or other forms of
response simply will not work.

That is correct. Those "times" don't indictate to decent loving parents
that they child is defiant, evil, sin filled, but simply wrong. He or
she does not know.

We have many alternatives at that moment, not the least of which is to
do nothing at all, and wait for a better time, an older child, a less
tired or distracted child, a child that not in the circumstances that
caused them to react in a way we consider misbehavior...like tempted by
cookies on the coffee table, or something shiny set down low.

Other alternatives are equally as simple. Move things. Set up proper
barriers so a child can't get to the traffic filled street. Simply pick
the child up and hug them even as they try to hit another. It's amazing
what attention one can get from a child by the simple act of repeating
what they always expected when they were in destress at an earlier
age...comfort. It will put thim in the more receptive frame of mind
that it did back then...for it's just using old patterns to learn new
things.

The child will defy you
no matter what you do and so, at that point, spanking
becomes the only option.

R R R R . .. . "defy you." That's a silly to see in writing as when I
hear it, and when I see a parent doing their spanking.

What do parents spank for?

Tired children that cannot listen.

Ignorant children that are not ready for cause and effect reasoning.

Frightened children that strike out protectively.

Selfish children that defend their toys and space against other
children, at 3 and younger.....when they cannot, because of the limits
of brain development, do anything else.

Children that talk back and say "NO!" emphatically just as they are
taught the word, but cannot really know the meanings involved.

If they could think, for spanking them at moments such as that they'd
think you were crasy. They are trying to learn, and like all learners
are going to stumble and do many things incorrectly....but defiance? R
R R R R...

They are simply TRYING HARDER. Often they have no idea what you wish or
want. Adults frequently overestimate, or incorrectly estimate, the
child's capacity to understand, and their actual motives.

It's ALWAYS to learn, no matter what the ignorant, such as you think
you are seeing.

If you back down at that
point, the child will run the house.

I never had to "back down." It was never a control struggle. When they
were too little to resist me physically I'd just pick them up, remove
them from the areas, or to the area I wanted them in, and keep it
loving and fun. Very quickly if I wanted a change of scenery they
learned to go for it with a word.

These were a few: "bath time?" "wanna popcicle?" "mommy's home,"
"watermelon?" "waterfight," etc.

When the were five, and six, and seven, and seventeen, the words
changed, the intent did not. Raising my kids was so pleasant and easy
that I used to not tell all the child haters I saw around me who called
themselves parents. I was afraid they'd kill me.

And I more than enough excitement too, as my kids were tremendously
brave and exploratory. Man did I run alot if they were out of earshot.

On the flip side,
if you spank all of the time, the child no longer fears
it and is used to it and it does not have the desired
effect.

You have a spanking machine then, that is set on random acts of
punishment?

You see to forget the fear is not of the spanking. It's of the spanker.


If I was around your children they'd quickly learn, I do not hit,
humiliate, shame, children. And they would never need to fear me doing
so. They would come to me to learn, as my children did, without fear.

I'll bet your children came to you a lot for "instruction." Fear based
parenting creates that kind of dependency, and makes monsters that look
like good citizens, but can be easily directed to do horrible things to
others and themselves by people that knew or sense instinctively how
you raised them.

Cults know how to use that well. They are kind and gentle and
supportive at first....that pulls the kid in who thinks they have
finally found a "parent" that is gentle. Once in the pain and
humiliation starts, and because you taught them to be compliant using
pain, they will obey and not question. And they will in fact ask for
more indoctrination and more punishment with it..because it is a
familiar pattern that makes them feel comfortable because it's
predictable.

It should be a last resort and not one that is
often employed and properly done, it won't have to be.

Oddly, I found that no matter how often I used laughter, gentle
direction and information sharing, even backing down when I could see
the child wasn't ready, it never wore out. The child never developed
any resistance to by its frequency.

And my children never had any fear connected to it to wear out or
become harden to, and so my parenting, no matter how frequently, or
vigorously, or intensely I applied it, even produced the slightest
reduction in effect.

Weird, eh?

In fact...and promise not to tell anyone. I got better at it, it was
more and more effective, to the point my kids were powerful self
learners at very young ages..much younger than other kids, spanked
kids, and they are to this day..in their 40's.

It will be a rare thing, because the child knows that
you will, if necessary, take it to whatever level the
child decides to take it to.

My kids knew the same thing. If I could not get through to them I'd
take it to the level of asking them to help me find a way for them to
understand. That was the bottom line for us.

The Big Threat! "Dad's stuck, what should we do?"

They always had elegantly constructed responses. "Maybe when I'm
older?" "Maybe after snack time, I'm hungry." "Could we try it my way
once to see daddy?" "Yes, I think I'll try sharing and see if that
works." "I still can't say that word right, sniff so I'll try again
tomorrow." "I won't climb up on the fence again unless you are holding
my hand?"

That circumstances in that last one damn near gave me a heart attack,
but hit my kid? I don't think so.

And that is the key.

No, it's more frequent that last straw. The one the camel hates.

The
child knows that he/she takes it to that level and not
the parent. The parent is simply responding to said
level. The parent should not relish having to spank a
child and should try other options first.

I prefer instead of. And I do not have, nor do the parents I've known,
have a bit of trouble with that. The lies that children that aren't
"spanked" leaves out the truth that in fact they were, and the fact
that they were punished with other methods as well, instead of taught
by a loving supportive gentle parent.

Most parent think they are gentle, but are in fact brutes from the
child's perspective.

And a great by product of this kind of parenting?

Well the gently raised child can hardly wait to give some of it back. I
used to have to ask my kids to get back to their growing up tasks. They
wanted, at 5 and 6 and after to do housework, the laundry, and fetch
and carry for adults to the point I had to forbid friends and family to
take advantage of their generous spirits.

--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99

I do believe I've heard reference to a Teacher before. And you missed
His message, Pastor.

What do you think of the parenting methods of The Pearls. Does it seem
to you they follow your method of withhold spanking as a last resort?

They seem terribly popular with some Christian parents.

http://www.gospeltruth.net/children/pearl_tuac.htm this page shows how
they create violent monsters of children before the fact by doing it in
their minds, as a rationale for what will come.....the whipping they
advocate.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...48656?v=glance
or: http://tinyurl.com/433mu

Seems some folks take exception to such methods.


/ \ 888
o{}xxxxx[]:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::888
\ 888

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17

You sure like that violent imagery, don'tcha?

My kids gave that up early in life as they successfully transversed the
normal human facination with violence as 6 year olds. By eleven my son
was so gentle, but a very strong kid, and still is, that he put his bb
gun down forever when he shot a little birdy. He told me with a very
thoughtful face, much as he wore whenever he learned something new,
from a math problem to how to climb a rope, that he had killed the bird
and didn't want to use his bb gun anymore. I think he was apologizing
to me for the cost of it and his setting it aside.

Now he shoots paper only, and is competitive grade. But nothing alive.
I put a nice fresh daisy on the end of your blade. Like it?

Kane

On 14 Dec 2004 18:31:34 -0800, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, "Kane"
pontificated:


Actually, the Old Testament.

Do you think the New Testament then was not the new way to follow,
under Christ? What in Christ's message said to follow the ways of the
old testament? And what did he say regarding those that would hurt
children?

Do the words "sea bottom" and "millstone" bring anything to mind,
Pastor?

You assume that to discipline a child is to harm a
child. That is not a logical assumption. Harm comes
to a child when you do not discipline a child. Jesus
did not address disciplining a child at all. And btw,
He was the one who inspired Solomon.


"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the
rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
- Proverbs 22:15

And the Hebrew word for"rod"is actually the same word used in the
O.T. for tribe, scepter, and authority. First used in Genesis 49:10.
And it is also used for a shepherds staff. That is not used to beat the
sheep, but to protect and guide them.

Actually, the word does not appear in Genesis 49:10 and
in Proverbs, it means, "a stick". And you forget, it
says, "the rod of correction" (correction as in
chastisement).


"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou
beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
- Proverbs 23:13

And these are from the Proverbs of who? I have a hunch the
interpretation of "beatest" might well be open to interpretation as
well.

Beatest = nakah - to strike

Strike with the rod.

You can dance all you want, but physical discipline,
only when absolutely necessary as a last resort, of
course, is prescribed in the Bible.


--

Pastor Dave Raymond

"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99

/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
\

"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17