Death By Spanking

In a thread called Death By Spanking, started by Kane
Kane posted:
1 From: 0:- Date: Sun, Apr 16 2006 1:58 pm

The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal

of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the

U.S. from corporal punishment that has escalated to a lethal level.
They
estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually. 1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

That's the problem I've pointed out here for a couple of years. Parents

often do NOT know where the boundaries are, and cross them all to
easily.

Even a child jumping away or startling or making a normal human
protective move can be badly injured or killed.


Why risk it?
--------------------------------------------------------




1. Holly Rossi, "Sparing the Rod," Beliefnet.com, 2005-FEB, at:
http://www.beliefnet.com/
Did anybody check out this footnote? Kane left it off. Intentionally?

Would Holly Rossi be able to cite the exact issue of the NEJM??

But I thought the website was funny for other reasons:
Copyright © 2002 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2005-FEB-28 Author: B.A. Robinson

Where is this "Sue" that Kane blames for the NEJM misinformation?

Greegor wrote:
In a thread called Death By Spanking, started by Kane
Kane posted:
1 From: 0:- Date: Sun, Apr 16 2006 1:58 pm

The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal

of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the

U.S. from corporal punishment that has escalated to a lethal level.
They
estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually. 1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

That's the problem I've pointed out here for a couple of years. Parents

often do NOT know where the boundaries are, and cross them all to
easily.

Even a child jumping away or startling or making a normal human
protective move can be badly injured or killed.


Why risk it?
--------------------------------------------------------




1. Holly Rossi, "Sparing the Rod," Beliefnet.com, 2005-FEB, at:
http://www.beliefnet.com/
Did anybody check out this footnote? Kane left it off. Intentionally?

Nope.


Would Holly Rossi be able to cite the exact issue of the NEJM??

Darned if I know. Ask her. Her e-mail addy was available.

But I thought the website was funny for other reasons:
Copyright © 2002 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2005-FEB-28 Author: B.A. Robinson

What would be funny about this?

Where is this "Sue" that Kane blames for the NEJM misinformation?

You didn't read the article? AGAIN?

"Sue" is the person being quoted by the author:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

And I fully identified her earlier.

Sue Lawrence, of Ban The Rod notoriety. And a brave and courageous women
in my book. A decent loving human being that does not want to see
children assaulted under the guise of "biblical reprimand."

Willing to stand up against people of her own faith and argue against
they practices and beliefs concerning the use of CP.

That takes guts YOU don't have, Greg.

You can't find these people?

And you are terrified to ask them directly, aren't you?

Because you have called one or both liars, publicly, didn't you? And
didn't others here?

She was willing to risk legal action against her for going public
against The Rod. Put her and her children's future on the line
economically. She AND her husband.

And you, Greg?

You are willing to interfere in a child's life and threaten to sue the
state, which has NO penalties for making any statement against them
publicly that you wish (since they are a government agency and cannot
SUE YOU back.)

You are a coward, she is a courageous woman.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Where's the NEJM article then?
How much courage would it take to
cite the NEJM article?

See comments below:

Greegor wrote:
In a thread called Death By Spanking, started by Kane
Kane posted:
1 From: 0:- Date: Sun, Apr 16 2006 1:58 pm

The Department of Health and Human Services and the New England Journal

of Medicine estimate that 1,000 to 2,000 children die every year in the

U.S. from corporal punishment that has escalated to a lethal level.
They
estimate that 142,000 are seriously injured annually. 1

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

That's the problem I've pointed out here for a couple of years. Parents

often do NOT know where the boundaries are, and cross them all to
easily.

Even a child jumping away or startling or making a normal human
protective move can be badly injured or killed.

A child jumjping away, startling, or making a normal human protective
move has nothing to do with parents crossing the line. Parents do no
inflict this response, this is a normal human reaction. Parents have
the responsibility of creating the safest and best environment possible
for their children. Spanking is a deliberate decision made on the part
of the parents to subject their child to pain and humiliation at their
hands, and acceptance of not only subjecting this on their child, but
risking long-term negative outcomes.


Why risk it?

One doesn't place a child at risk for reflexive, normal human protective
behaviors. One places a child at risk when one chooses to spank a
child. Spanking is a deliberate and consciencious decision made by the
parent/school/caregiver. No one deliberately inflicts on a child the
behaviora of "jumping away or startling or making a normal human
protective move"

Good grief. This is so incredibly ignorant.

LaVopnne
--------------------------------------------------------




1. Holly Rossi, "Sparing the Rod," Beliefnet.com, 2005-FEB, at:
http://www.beliefnet.com/
Did anybody check out this footnote? Kane left it off. Intentionally?

Would Holly Rossi be able to cite the exact issue of the NEJM??

But I thought the website was funny for other reasons:
Copyright © 2002 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2005-FEB-28 Author: B.A. Robinson

Where is this "Sue" that Kane blames for the NEJM misinformation?

Greegor wrote:
Where's the NEJM article then?

I've not idea. I didn't cite it.

How much courage would it take to
cite the NEJM article?

You'll have to ask the person that did cite it.

It would be unusual to do so, other than to mention the source generally.

Why don't you explore this with someone that might be able to answer
your question, since I am unable to do so?

Which I've said a number of times, and you ignore, which means you are
harassing me.

Why?

Afraid to actually ask the people that I quoted?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

A perfect example of the "Social Worker Mentality"
LaVonne feels duly authorized to impose her superior
thought processes on others.

Greegor wrote:
A perfect example of the "Social Worker Mentality"
LaVonne feels duly authorized to impose her superior
thought processes on others.

You feel compelled by her to allow her to impose, that is force, her
views on you and make you follow them?

Ah, if only....

R R R R R

0;-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Yep, a pontificating ponce.

Greegor wrote:
Yep, a pontificating ponce.

My goodness. I'll have to alert LaVonne to this remarkable power she
has acquired.

She now can force, according to you, "her 'Social Worker Mentality' and
feels duly authorized to impose her superior thought processes on
others."

What is it about her thought process, Greg, that would make you
succeptible to them?

And why do you think they are superior?

Superior to who?

Let me see. You can't filter her out of your newsreader? You can't
simply not read her posts? You are compelled to allow her to force here
thought processes on you?

I find this remarkablely Greg-like considering how everyone else, even
a six year old child, is seen by you as "making me do things."

You are that weak willed?

I must be terrible strong willed to resist her powerful arguments for
creating a law against the use of CP on children. I managed it for I
think nearly three years of reading her posts.

I held my position that I did not support such a law, arguing that
people had to come to a personal moral decision by awakening,
personally, to the issue of child abuse and CP.

I thought that I had a change of position on this issue by way of both
her arguments, and the considerable body of both scientific research I
reviewed, and the long history I looked at of folks like you that don't
get it, didn't get it, and very likely aren't going to get it without
some fines and jail time.

Gosh, and all the time it was LaVonne's magical mind control power over
me. Who'dathought, eh?

0:-

Let's see if you are capable of discussing the post you cut, and wrote
what you did below in blue.

Here is what you cut -- I said:

A child jumjping away, startling, or making a normal human protective
move has nothing to do with parents crossing the line. Parents do no
inflict this response, this is a normal human reaction. Parents have
the responsibility of creating the safest and best environment possible
for their children. Spanking is a deliberate decision made on the part
of the parents to subject their child to pain and humiliation at their
hands, and acceptance of not only subjecting this on their child, but
risking long-term negative outcomes.



Why risk it?


One doesn't place a child at risk for reflexive, normal human protective
behaviors. One places a child at risk when one chooses to spank a
child. Spanking is a deliberate and consciencious decision made by the
parent/school/caregiver. No one deliberately inflicts on a child the
behavior of "jumping away or startling or making a normal human
protective move"


Greegor wrote:
A perfect example of the "Social Worker Mentality"
LaVonne feels duly authorized to impose her superior
thought processes on others.