Kids should work !!!

On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus16936 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, CJS wrote:


And for the real word, children should learn that society will reward them
for good behaviors and PUNISH them for bad behaviors. It is just
common-sense.

Is it necessary for the parent to administer punishment ?
Sometime, YES!

punishment does not equal to beating.

Who said anything about "BEATING"???? ;-)

I said. I was talking about a special form of beating called spanking.

LOL! A spanking is a "special form" of beating??? I guess that would
make a breeze a "special form" of tornado!!!

Come over to my house and we'll see how much damage I can do with a
few spanks. I have a very heavy hand!

Then I am glad that you are not using "beating". You seem to have little
self-control.

Examples: taking away favorite toys, not talking to the kids,
grounding, etc etc.

And you will be surprised if you read Straus & Mouradian (1998) that these
non-cp alternatives "correlated" to antisocial problems MORE strongly
than spankings. As Dr. Larzelere said:

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems 10 times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would use such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege removal
are counterproductive."

I have seen too many spurious correlations to believe in any
conclusions based on them. Correlations are not causations.

And yet we have people who argued about banning spanking based on
such!

Nevertheless, a phrase that you quoted ``No one would use such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal are counterproductive'' seems to agree with my position rather
than disagree.

So what your beef with spanking?

Doan

On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus16936 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:

On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus16936 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, CJS wrote:


And for the real word, children should learn that society will reward them
for good behaviors and PUNISH them for bad behaviors. It is just
common-sense.

Is it necessary for the parent to administer punishment ?
Sometime, YES!

punishment does not equal to beating.

Who said anything about "BEATING"???? ;-)

I said. I was talking about a special form of beating called spanking.

LOL! A spanking is a "special form" of beating??? I guess that would
make a breeze a "special form" of tornado!!!

both tornade and breeze are forms of wind...

True! So doesn't it make sense to be specific?

Come over to my house and we'll see how much damage I can do with a
few spanks. I have a very heavy hand!

Then I am glad that you are not using "beating". You seem to have little
self-control.

idiotic personal attacks...

Why do you take it as a personal attack?

Examples: taking away favorite toys, not talking to the kids,
grounding, etc etc.

And you will be surprised if you read Straus & Mouradian (1998) that these
non-cp alternatives "correlated" to antisocial problems MORE strongly
than spankings. As Dr. Larzelere said:

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems 10 times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would use such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege removal
are counterproductive."

I have seen too many spurious correlations to believe in any
conclusions based on them. Correlations are not causations.

And yet we have people who argued about banning spanking based on
such!

Well, I personally do not give much credence to correlations,
regardless of whether they support my position.

Nevertheless, a phrase that you quoted ``No one would use such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal are counterproductive'' seems to agree with my position rather
than disagree.

So what your beef with spanking?

Why did you cite a quote that supports my position better than yours?

How? Unless you are arguing against banning spanking, how does it support
your position?

Why did you not acknowledge that it supported my position and asked a
deflecting question?

Because it doesn't! Unless you are saying that you have no case against
spanking.

Are you interested in demagoguery or honest discussion?

It would very much depend on you. Do you want to talk about spanking
or BEATING? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote in message ...
On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus16936 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:

On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus16936 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On 25 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, CJS wrote:


And for the real word, children should learn that society will reward them
for good behaviors and PUNISH them for bad behaviors. It is just
common-sense.

Is it necessary for the parent to administer punishment ?
Sometime, YES!

punishment does not equal to beating.

Who said anything about "BEATING"???? ;-)

I said. I was talking about a special form of beating called spanking.

LOL! A spanking is a "special form" of beating??? I guess that would
make a breeze a "special form" of tornado!!!

both tornade and breeze are forms of wind...

True! So doesn't it make sense to be specific?

Absolutely. Please give us in units of measurement common to weather
reporting the point where a breeze becomes a tornado.

When you are done with that (It exists) you may then provide the same
service for your spanking enthusiast buddies you like to apologize
for, vis a vis spanking vs beating.

snipping yet more ponderous crap..............

Are you interested in demagoguery or honest discussion?

It would very much depend on you. Do you want to talk about spanking
or BEATING? ;-)

It would depend on you being able to debate based on a measurable
cutoff point when spanking becomes beating and vis versa.

I'm waiting.

Or am I going to be treated, by the little science kid, to one of
those disarming little forays into "if you can't tell the difference
I'm not going to do it for you?"

Doan

Let's go, Science Boy.

Not that it hasn't been tried before and you silly asses fell on your
butts and ran.

Kane

wrote in message
...
(Kane) wrote:
snip
Absolutely. Please give us in units of measurement common to weather
reporting the point where a breeze becomes a tornado.

Quite
Chap,
the breeze from your butt becomes a tornado to noses.
http://tinyurl.com/ucs4

My suggestion for you?

Put on a ski mask, Dennis.

wrote in message
...
"Dan Sullivan" wrote:

Put on a ski mask, Dennis.

BaWaa, lie us a river, Waffleman.

Woof, you know him. Arf arf! Dan Sullivan is a split-tailtongue.Woof.
http://tinyurl.com/vqqa

On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:03:50 -0600, toto
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:18:51 -0800, Doan wrote:

Yep. This is exactly so because all punishments are essentially
the
same, but positive methods allow for the differences that parents
see.

Then it should be easy to prove. Again, just put the alternatives
to
same statiscal scrutiny as with spanking.

Time outs used as punishment are not positive discipline.
Nor is lecturing or scolding or any of the *other* methods that
were studied.

Doan's only argument, of course, will be asking you to provide
citations and data from peer reviewed studies that support: lecturing;
scolding; *other* methods not working.

Wrong! I am asking for NON-CP alternatives, any non-cp alternative!
If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS claimed, why
is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same statistical
scrutiny???

He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to the point
he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
"slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports his
argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of other
evidence that buries him.

Which are???? You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
group turned out to be a group that were spanked???

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Are you so blind? ;-)

I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry Street Entry
study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic responses of
all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to neutrality
notwithstanding.

I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to post the
details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!! I wonder
why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant information of
this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us how many
kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding factors
were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real "phony" is?
:-)

And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to the needs
of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental level.

The devil is in the details. I am a pragmatic person, show me how
your theory work in real life situations. We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls. Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go. BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use SOME
rational means of teaching their children then spanking somehow is a
positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult Mentallity.

I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS like
Straus used! If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week is a
benefit! The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.

The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I notice
more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can survive
a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for the
child to just survive.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp cultures
"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:

On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:

The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I notice
more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can survive
a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for the
child to just survive.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp cultures
"survived"!

Just as there are few if any non-violent cultures that survive? Or few if any
non-drinking [alcohol] cultures that survive? Or few if any non-[anything harmful
to humanity] cultures that survive? In other words, you think "survival of the
fittest" plays into the evolution of what many consider to be "societal norms?" If
cp survived, it just has to be right, right Doan?

-Jerry-

Gerald Alborn wrote
In other words, you think "survival of the
fittest" plays into the evolution of what
many consider to be "societal norms?" If
cp survived, it just has to be right, right Doan?
-Jerry-

It worked for John Glenn, Abraham Lincoln and
the founding fathers.