If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Don't bother doan, Jerry, like his alter ego kane has been thrown into the
iggy bin for now. He apparently wants ME to prove kane's allegations wrong, which many have done continually, and wants me to repost what I dispute, even after using direct quotes of Kane's posts when I post. Amazing how blind and stupid some people are. Truly unbelievable that they manage to survive in this world. "Doan" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote: Dennis Hancock wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves. Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what you've asserted. And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no question. Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them myself. :-) :-) :-) :-) I will be glad to google them for you, Gerald. Just say the word. :-) Doan |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
More nonsense from Gerald.... he considers a parent's RESPONSIBILITY to
teach, control and discipline their child as forcing their will upon someone.. LOL.. Amazing that a person can even begin to argue that EVERYONE who attempts to discipline their own children is an abusive jerk who is imposing their will on them. Not worth the bother as he is either a liar, a teenager who has never had kids, or a complete idiot. Almost turned my stomach to read the nonsense below "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt many different methods and find what works for THEIR child. Works for their child? You mean what "works for them." I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer. Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond your grasp? and quite often, use different methods for different siblins. Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it isn't really abuse? My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who abuses children, How are you able to accept that physical discipline is not abuse? What logic do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are illegal to use on adults? Do you honestly believe there is no affect from punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions? and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he refuses to accept any definitions given to him. You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young children is somehow good and has no damaging effects? He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let him continue his rantings and ravings. You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear. Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be too much of an overload. -Jerry- |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Doan you can't reach him. He, like Kane is stuck in their own self
righeousness hell which they made for themselves. The ONLY way their 'truth' has any validity is by villifying every other opinion and portraying anyone who disagrees with them as evil or abusive. They are too stupid to understand that their methods are MUCH MORE abusive than what most consider discipline and teaching because it can cause more emotional distress on a child because they feel the parent' doesn't care enough to set limits and teach their children. Oh yeah, they TRY to say they set limits, but limits without any logical reinforcement are as good as none at all. "Doan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Gerald Alborn wrote: Dennis Hancock wrote: I don't even have a problem with your decision to use other methods on your children, and in fact have stated many times that most parents do attempt many different methods and find what works for THEIR child. Works for their child? You mean what "works for them." And you are the judge right, Jerry? I seem to recall asking you what you mean by "works." I never did see an answer. Lot's of things may "work" if compliance to your every demand, or blind obedience is your only objective. Is that your only concern? Now that you're the adult, do you mean by "works," "finally getting your way with others - namely children?" I have greater concern for children's healthy emotional development than what "works" to make life easier for parents. Why is this so far beyond your grasp? Because it is none of your business, Jerry. Are you saying that your care for other people's children MORE THAN THEIR OWN PARENTS? and quite often, use different methods for different siblins. Why do so many, like you, decide that abuse works, and convince yourself that it isn't really abuse? WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS ABUSE? My whole problem with Kane is that he is attempting to portray ANYONE who uses any sort of physical discipline on their children as a monster who abuses children, How are you able to accept that physical discipline is not abuse? What logic do you use to convince yourself that it's okay to hurt children in ways that are illegal to use on adults? Are you saying that it is illegal for the police to use his batons??? Do you honestly believe there is no affect from punitively inflicted pain on children, upon their young developing emotions? AND YOU THINK THERE IS? Let's me see you prove this, Jerry? and without that, his logic falls apart, which is why he refuses to accept any definitions given to him. You mean definitions you create to give yourself the illusion that hurting young children is somehow good and has no damaging effects? Do you think removing children from their parents is good and have no damaging effects? Can you show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which the non-cp alternatives are better under the same conditions??? He cannot understand that many parents use different levels of both positive and negative reinforcement on their children until they hopefully come up with what works. I tire of his nonsense and after reading this group of posts, will most assuredly filter his name out of my reading list and let him continue his rantings and ravings. You may get that way with me, too. There are real reasons (rooted in your own painful childhood) why you want to deny the truth about the harmfulness of hurting children in the name of disciple. It's simply too painful to bear. Having people point your head at the truth and make you see it must simply be too much of an overload. The problem is people like you who think that that they have the "truth". But when pressed, it is nothing more than opinion. Tell me, Jerry, is your childhood that "painful"??? Doan |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Dennis Hancock wrote:
"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: "Gerald Alborn" wrote in message ... Dennis Hancock wrote: DUH... Kane's assertions are so lame and weak that they defeat themselves. Thank you for further demonstrating that you can provide no basis for what you've asserted. And thank you for showing that you accept Kane's nonsense with absolutely no question. Tell me Dennis, what words of Kane's do you regard as nonsense? Ah, don't tell me. You can't post them but would like me to go into google and try to find them myself. :-) :-) :-) :-) You make a whole lot of statements without ever clarifying what it is you're talking about. I guess even you know that you're in a position where that's your only option. Damn Gerald, how many times must I QUOTE his post and post DIRECTLY under the EXACT words I consider nonsense. At least once would be nice. I've asked you numerous times but you've yet to come through. Of course, I realize that you have a good reason for not doing so... What pleasure do you get from attempting to keep asking the same lame questions, Apparently it's displeasureable to be asked questions you cannot answer? Is it really all that lame to ask you to prove your credibility when it's in serious doubt? For a while I was thinking that it might be possible for you to provide details about your assertions, which we could then discuss. Instead, you keep running for cover. Why is that? If your statements and beliefs can't stand up to critical scrutiny, why do you insist upon maintaining them? and keep believing every word Kane posts as the absolute truth? I've never said whether or not I believed every word Kane posts. But, unlike you, when asked, Kane backs up his statements with substantiating details. Are you that truly that stupid and gullible, or are you just a parrot for Kane, Kane's been around this ng for 2 or 3 years perhaps. If you had comprehended my previous posts in this thread, you'd know that I've been posting here since about mid 1995, and prior to that, on a Prodigy parenting bulletin board with some of the participants of this ng since about 1991. Because we've left no stones unturned, my position and Kane's just happen to be very similar. Unlike yours, my position does not rely upon an emotionally seated and deeply rooted belief system, blindly passed on from one generation to the next. attempting to somehow try to discredit any opposing viewpoint by asking repeatedly the same things over and over again (interestingly enough, the same thing kane keeps doing as well). Actually, you're the one discrediting yourself by your inability to post material supportive of your assertions. As long as you're unable to answer, I may as well probe that until you either admit you were lying, or until you cave and refuse to discuss it any further. Either way, I have nothing to lose. You're doing a real good job discrediting yourself and your viewpoints all by yourself, Dennis. Anyone who wants to look closely at what you write can see that your credibility has plenty of holes in it. It's just fortunate that the spanking side is so allied with people like you who can't be open and honest with themselves, let alone with others. If you haven't read the posts, why should I bother to go back and repost them for your benefit? Well you shouldn't, actually. Aside from the fact that you can't repost what isn't there, it helps to show everyone what your level of integrity is. Let's just leave it at that. DUH.. I can't repost what isn't there.. apparently you cannot read, or have some lack of comprhension since I have used quoting his posts directly as a means of posting my rebuttal to his lame nonsense. If that's a fact, then why do you find it impossible to back up the claims you've been making that I've read and have been questioning? I don't care if you claim you've quoted posts directly in the past. The issue is, why can't you substantiate specific claims, when they are questioned, now? The only plausible explanation is that you know you can't backup statements you made that you know are untrue. Specifically what posts are you referring to? You've already demonstrated that you can't generally post more than two sentences without either stretching the truth way out of whack or outright lying. *I* can't post more than two sentences without stretching the truth or outright lying? WHERE ARE MY LIES? Kane has posted nothing but lies, There's one. I've not seen a single lie Kane has posted. He might have posted lies before (I rather doubt that), but everyone knows you're the one lying when you state that Kane's never ever posted a truthful statement [i.e., has posted nothing but lies]. and stretch truth and flip flopped back and forth, and my calling him a liar is stretching the truth or outright lies? The latter. You calling him a liar is an outright lie. Thanks for asking. Grow up asshole and smell the coffee brewing. I really don't think that's coffee brewing, Dennis. But I agree that there is an odor. I'd really be surprised if that odor didn't turn out to be something you're smoking. YOu want some asshole like Kane TELLING you how to raise your kids, and accusing people of being abusers because they don't follow his lame assed ideology, fine, go for it. My kids are already raised, Dennis. Kane's parenting philosophy is sound, and supported by all available research on the subject. But shut the **** up and keep it to yourself as you, like kane are now on ignore for nonsensical bull****. You don't want to be challenged or hear things that go against your beliefs. That's one way of maintaining your fortress of denial. And we didn't even get to the point where we could debate the real issue - hitting and hurting children in the name of discipline. And you have a bridge for sale too, right? and you would surely buy it from your hero kane, simple because he 'tells' you how great it is. Once again, I adopted my parenting philosophy long before Kane arrived. -Jerry- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 1 | October 25th 03 10:41 PM |
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |