Kids should work...

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:18:30 GMT, "bobb" wrote:

I'm not an advocate of spanking.. and never have.. but I fail to see
how a
slap on the butt harms any child.

I know you do. Nothing seems to have context or connection for you
unless it serves one of your superstitions.

I do take exception to those who
repeatedly slap a child which I view as a way for a mother to vent
her
frustration and anger. There is a context problem when it comes to
spanking.

Yeah, there is that all right. The child won't be a bit confused about
the context issue.

I find it unreal that anyone can associate spanking with later adult
behaviors.

Of course you do. As I said, you cannot manage even a semblance of
objectivity outside your own locked subjective views.

The 'experts' take a common behavior and twist it into something
that fits their mindset.

On the contrary. They are doing what you cannot. YOu just described
yourself to a T.

The are far more objectively (methodology, peer review, scientific
research standard protocols - rules if you will) are not your forte.

That being said, I did a little search on spanking and found that
many
parents resort to bare-ass spanking and schools have ordered kids to
drop
their pants while being spanked with paddles.. both of which I
suppose
found it's roots in the old woodshed.

I wonder if you've read the PDF file I pointed to the other day, where
an academic who is against CP wrote of his own change of heart.

It might sound terrible but I've told a few kids if they did
something
really out-rageous, and using one of their friends as behavior an
example,
it would be just cause for a bare-assed spanking.

It does sound terrible when you put it in context. Real children, real
dilemas of social learning being handed to you to give them assistance
and your choice was threat.

It was just my way of
showing distain for certain certain behaviors I wouldn't approve or
tolerate.

Yes, it certainly was "your way" all rightie. Ever thought of trying
some others?

Of all the posts I've seen here none have alluded to bare-ass
spanking so in that context I see nothing wrong.

I also found there is a sexual content to spanking. Dumb me... I never
gave a thought about S & M associations. There are adults who get
off on
spanking their kids.

There are few who don't. The problem is they cycle is so ancient that
an entire ritualistic self excusing routine that blocks the spanker
from directly confronting his or her own feelings is well established.
Nothing like a thousand or two years or so of something to make it
"normal."

Parents also use bare-ass spanking as a way of imposing further
humilation
on a child by forcing him/her to undress and not alway in private
but
rather an example to others.

So, do you approve of humiliated a child sexually, and by intrusions
on privacy?

What I also didn't give a thought to is there an age appropriate
time not
to spank. My sense of spanking was usually that of a child younger
than say
6 as an attention getter.. not a punishment. You don't touch the hot
stove
or run out into the street.

Ever read the Embry study articles from the popular parenting
magazines? Traffic control was his field mostly. Human behavior
applied social research. His various work in the field for major
government bodies is prett well known.

He did a "toddler street entry" study...and himself believed in
punishment methods...but low and behold he discovered all punishment
methods INCREASED STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE CHILD, whereas
non-punitive teaching resulted in FEWER STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE
CHILD...the a remarkable degree.

Now I understand to those such as you that can't get out of your own
comfort zone this is blasphemous and makes your guts quake, but could
you for a moment suspend your psychological brain washing and open up
to the possibility YOU could be WRONG and others could be right on
this issue?

I now understand there there are many contexts of spanking I was not
aware
of.

One of the failings of the spanking group is there all to ready to go
to the strap and fail to build a repertoire of other effective
parenting methods.

The "other" category has a count in the thousands. Spankers are up to
what, 3 to 5 different contexts for spanking and the way to do it?

Dumbasses.

bobb

You sure are.

Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:29:23 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 2 Dec 2003, Ignoramus15011 wrote:

In article ,
Doan wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:



Ignoramus15011 wrote:

How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal
society
way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
principles of human society.

Exactly. How would he be a better person if your were hitting
him in the name of
discipline? I can't think of one reason, and research has yet
to find a reason
for disciplinary hitting of children.

Straus et al (1997):

"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."

Straus & Paschal (1998)
"There is also an important limitation of the CP scale. We cannot
be sure
that the children with a score of zero on the CP scale were never
spanked.
In fact, some are likely to have been spanked in a previous year
or in some
other week of this period. Consequently the claim that CP, when
used only
rarely and as a back up for other disciplinary strategies, is
beneficial
(Larzelere et al., 1998) might apply to children who experienced
no CP in
either of the two sample weeks."

ot sounds to me that you are misquoting a thorough researcher. It
seems like his research indicated some contamination of the
non-spanking group and he was forthright in pointing that out.

And you would be wrong! First, in Straus et al (1997), they didn't
know
(or pretended not to know) that their "non-spank" group were actually
spanked (56% of the sample, how do they missed it?) When this was
pointed
out by Larzelere, they capitulated, became "indebted" to Larzelere
and
finally blamed it on Straus' bias:

"Straus, for example, has made explicit the fact that his research is
motivated by secular humanism. This includes a deeply held belief
that
good ends should not be sought by bad means; that all forms of
interpersonal
violence, including spanking, are wrong, even when motivated by love
and
concern; and that we therefore need to develop nonviolent methods of
preventing and correcting antisocial behavior. These deeply held
values may
account for the failure of Straus to perceive the serious limitation
of
measuring CP using a 1-week reference period."
(ARCHIVES, In Reply. March 1998)

Second, only after it being "pointed out" to them did they put that
"limitation" in Straus & Paschal (1998) thus showing a serious hole
in their theory that any and all spanking are detrimental!

Third, as pointed in Larzelere & Smith (2000), what they don't tell
you
(or conveniently left out) is that, using the same data set, the
non-cp
alternatives like: grounding, removing privileges, docking
allowances, or
sending the child to his or her room (time-out) showed the same
correlations!


It is sad that you have nothing better than a twisted quote to
justify
violence against children.

It is sad that we can't argue rationally but prefer to use
emotionally
charged words like "violence" and "beating".

It's sad when we have to argue by using weasel words that minimize and
deny the brutality of spanking and other forms of CP....

In addition it's sad when we try to discount important research by
pointing out that non CP alternative methods surveyed don't
work.......and fail to point out they were ALL punishment
alternatives, rather than developmental-needs-based alternatives that
support the child's learning growth.

Why is it that pro spankers and other child brutalizers fail to
understand that "discipline" doesn't have to be "punishment" and has
another meaning entirely?

Thousands of years of brain washing? Probably.

Doan

Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:37:07 -0800, Doan wrote:


On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife wrote:

How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal
society
way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
principles of human society.

I don't know of animals that beat their young.
Only degenerate humans could be that base.
;-)

I saw the same argument used against abortion! Do you know of any
animal
that put their youngs in diaper??? ;-)

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

YOU haven't answered the simple question, "when does a spanking become
a beating."

What is the point of passing over from one to the other.

And none of that usual slime of yours like "if you don't know I'm not
going to tell you," or "anti spankers, etc."

Come on Doan, let's have it. You can't defend that their is a
difference between spanking and beating unless you can make a
definative arguement for what one is and not the other.

Of course you do know that even the legal definitions tend to be
somewhat less than clear, most especially on the questions of
psychological harm.

How low must the intensity be for spanking to not cause psychological
harm?

Doan

Choking are you?

Kane

On 1 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


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!

And when offered you lie.

LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)

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???

Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has show
repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.

So who need science! ;-)

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????

Read below the next comment.

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

And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited that
this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
Doan, which people are tired of humoring.

LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?

"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? ;-)

Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group, where
ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE BEST
BEHAVIOR.

Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)

How many times has this been pointed out to you?

How many times do you have to lie? :-)

Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence of
causality. The less spanking the better behavior.

Are you so stupid??? Correlation is not causation! It is not even
evidence of a temporal order! Read the studies and learn to respond
rationally, Kane. ;-)

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?
:-)

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822


I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is not
adequate for your purposes.

What a cop out! Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
respond. Chris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and avoided
me at every chance! You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study or not?
At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that 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.

That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?

Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands. I should
just accept it base on faith, right Kane???

I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0

show me how
your theory work in real life situations.

You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
worked at. I await your arrival.

Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
publish your results?

We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls.

Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP as
a threat.

Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf
"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go.

About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated, that
is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I not
only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods of
any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens and
mentally ill teens.

As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other practitioners
were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading everywhere
even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not allowed.

LOL! You are not puffering, are you? What is the recidivism rate?

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
anyway and get away with it.

Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
you don't want that, right? ;-)

BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many means
outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately to
go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my post)
for long periods of time.

LOL!

THOSE are allowed.

Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)

Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
applied without striking.

In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked with
was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that took
the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the board
of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.

WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it, Kane.
What is the recidivism rate before and after?

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!

Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?

LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)

Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for the
social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address nice
nice issues. Monies come to study harm.

You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the funding
agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
contention.

Funny, Straus
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.

No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
spanking is less effective then a little spanking.

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? ;-)

Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in a
sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only don't
they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see if
they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are as
important to the process as the adults.

I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
years.

"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share their
dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when you
look at what happenned to them the last time they told their secret?"

and
"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has taken
liberties witht the small amount of information available on the tribe
and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject and
make your own decisions."

Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)

Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and punishes
that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and murder,
and low child abuse rates.

There's a good boy.

Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)

And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension and
in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I offer
this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some of
the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.

Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children for
centuries and it worked" bull****.


http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf

Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain and
believe! ;-)

Doan



Doan


{-]

In article , Kane wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

Actually, they are both subsets of hitting. But a subset is not the
equivalence of the whole set! Just as oranges, lemons and grapefruits
are subsets of citrus.

You can beat someone with a stick, a metal chain, a hammer, or an open
palm. Beating children with an open palm is spanking.

And immunizing children is to inject them with germs???? Cutting children
nails is to cut off parts of their bodies????

Spanking is violence directed at children with the purpose to
intimidate them into compliance.

And I thought I can have a rational discourse! What next? Abortion
is murder??? ;-)

Doan

On 2 Dec 2003 20:13:12 GMT, Ignoramus29143
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:

I wonder if you've read the PDF file I pointed to the other day,
where
an academic who is against CP wrote of his own change of heart.

where is that pdf?

http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf
By Norm Lee, 118 pages so if you are on dial up expect a long
download. I was particularly taken with one of his early few
paragraphs and his introduction to his own ignorance...always a shock,
that I notice some here avoid at all costs...R R R R

Here `tis:
"Waking Up
In 1956 I sat in the back row in a classroom at Syracuse University,
near the door, with my German Shepherd, Rex, at my side. As a veteran,
returned from combat in Korea and occupation of Japan, I had
cultivated a "no-nonsense" attitude.

The graduate student instructor was explaining how, when a child
misbehaves, we should, instead of punishing, seek to understand the
reasons and feelings causing the offending behavior.

"Mr. Jalbert," I smirked, "when Rex misbehaves I just hit him with a
folded newspaper. That straightens him out, and he loves me for it."
He quietly walked to face me, with a concerned expression on his face.
I remember the moment vividly: Then he bent down and said softly, "Mr.
Lee, is it asking too much to distinguish between a dog and a child?""

His thoughts at that you need to real in the PDF document I've posted
above.


Below I am not referring to the same person. This study was by Embry.

He did a "toddler street entry" study...and himself believed in
punishment methods...but low and behold he discovered all
punishment
methods INCREASED STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY THE CHILD, whereas
non-punitive teaching resulted in FEWER STREET ENTRY ATTEMPTS BY
THE
CHILD...the a remarkable degree.

I am impressed and not surprised.

To me, the only circumstance when punishment is appropriate is when
the child is oppositional and acts inconsiderate given his
development
level. And even then, punishment does not need to be violent.

There are only two possible incidences that a child would be
oppositional and inconsiderate given his developmental level.

The first is when he has been given poor information by the world
around but more often by his caregiver. You see, a child acts exactly,
barring my next caveat, as nature intended and is always precisely on
target developmentally. A patient loving parent knows this an parents
accordingly with information, exploration support, and above all,
kindness.

In the only other instance that a child would be oppositional and
inconsiderate given his developmental level, she would likely be
dysfuctional mentally or physcially and unable to perform at
developmental level.

It is doubly hard to deal with if one moves to a punishment model, bot
for the child, and for the caregiver. Problems with worsen, at the
expense of healing, and outside of possibly gaining some compliance
through fear, the side effects can be threatening to the child and
later society. Prisons bear this out. There is a great deal of mental
illness and psychologically poor developmental progress among inmates.

In either case, why would you punish at all? What IS it you wish the
child to learn, say when she hits a playmate, or destroys something
you care about, or is noise in a place you wish her to be quiet, or if
she keeps dropping her food on the floor?

i

What is she sufferes from Ausbergers Syndrom, and as many foster or
adoptive children from state custody do, drug and alcohol effects or
syndrom?

Those who do parent these latter children, who are extrememly
difficult and time consuming to parent, with both physiologically
caused and survival trained (they do that, for sure where they came
from) very bad behaviors, learn how to parent without CP and mostly
without punishment where trainers are wise.

Imagine then. If these children can be parented without punishment why
would one need to use punishment on non compromised children to force
them to comply?

Learning to become human is very little based on the need to comply.
Ants would be a better model.

The only time I can think when it, physical punishment, was vital to
survival is when slaves had to teach their children not to cross the
master or overseer as it risked injury and or death.

Preachie, aren't I?

Blame it on bobb. R R R R R

Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:15:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 1 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


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!

And when offered you lie.

LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)

Since you can't hear me I find that more than little amusing..and in
fact somewhat alarming.

You can hear me then?

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???

Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has
show
repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.

So who need science! ;-)

Apparently you don't. I have been asking you for some time now, and
like other claims you've made when challenged, you have failed to
respond.

I recall Alborn asking to support claims you made long ago that you
simply walked away from.

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????

Read below the next comment.

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

And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited
that
this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
Doan, which people are tired of humoring.

LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?

Anytime there is more than one person it is appropriate to refer to
"people."

Am I the only one that has pointed out your duplicitious nonsense
then?

Did I not just call you a liar recently?

Do you need more proof than your misleading statement above, that I am
NOT speaking for people when say people?

"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? ;-)

Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group,
where
ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE
BEST
BEHAVIOR.

Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)

I've read it from top to bottom. It's you that hasn't...not that you
haven't looked at the words, but you apparently leave some out before
they hit those portions of your brain were reasoning takes place.

If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child is
hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in even
less unwanted behavior?


How many times has this been pointed out to you?

How many times do you have to lie? :-)

No, I do not beat my wife, nor have I ever. {-]

Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence
of
causality. The less spanking the better behavior.

Are you so stupid???

No. Not in the least. Are you to claim I am rather than respond with
what you think supports your position? You babble about the study, you
do not post anything but cherrypicked bits that even then fail to
adequeatly support your claims

Correlation is not causation!

And what did I say above? Did I say there was causality, or did I say
movement toward it by studying the evidence.

It is not even
evidence of a temporal order!

Which is a babble, once again, to try and divert from what I actually
said, that you proceeded to lie about...and the evidence lays just a
few paragraphs up from here.

No go hyper and claim I haven't read the studies, now that you've been
caught once again at your nonsense.

Read the studies and learn to respond
rationally, Kane. ;-)

Well, Doan, {-], since you seem to think that the study fails to
establish sequence, that is temporal order, how about YOU showing me
something to support that claim.

I didn't claim one way or another on chronological senquence. You are
stupid enough to think it hasn't that, so show us.

Or is this going to be yet another of your crabwalks?

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?
:-)

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822


I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is
not
adequate for your purposes.

What a cop out!

Then you haven't contacted him as I suggested you do to prove his
statements to be incorrect about toddler street entry, or that he in
fact faked the study? Yes, it was certainly a cop out.

It's you avoiding the challenge to your claims....that spanking is an
effective method of teaching. I have posted the articles, and I have
posted the quotes of Dr. Embry. So have others.

I you believe his study, as he declared its finding, is NOT correct
it's up to YOU to prove it by taking his study apart.

I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
findings.

Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
respond.

I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his
study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You
want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but
until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you
are flying.

And, just as I expected, you avoid the challenge YOU yourself posed,
to defend your denial of the results of his study as he was quoted. We
await.

hris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and avoided
me at every chance!

How would he "know better?"

His avoidance of you, I suspect, is the wearying nature of your
tiresome twiddle twaddle just as you have run in this post.....the
same old empty head rattling with the same old challenges that have
been met again and again but YOU not meeting the challenges presented
to you.

You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study or
not?

Did I not ask you to?

I cited the report on the study in a periodical, quoting Dr. Embry.

I was not citing the study itself. YOU screamed for the study. YOU
provide it or tell us why you can't, or think you can't.

Are you not now backing down? All you've done when presented with Dr.
Embry's quoted statements in the past is scream..show me the study.

You seem to fail to understand if I say I believe the moon is a ball
and you scream "No it's not!" Then it's up to you to prove your claim
it isn't, not mine to prove it is.

At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)

Why sure, blatherer, I still want you to respond to the Embry study.
Why have you once again avoided answering the question asked?

Are you trying to tell us there is no Embry study? He faked it? Come
on, boy, hit those keys harder and tell us what you think.

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.

That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?

Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands.

Not at all, just inappropriate ones. Someone presents some
information. You scream, "show me the study" when that is not what was
offered.

You apparently can't find it yourself and think no one else can. And
that you can prove it incorrect if you do. Any time now, Doan, any
time.

I should
just accept it base on faith, right Kane???

No.

If you don't believe what Dr. Embry related in the article that quoted
him YOU tear the study apart. I only quoted the article and him.

I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0

My, what an outburst. Now if I had done that you'd claim it was
because I was a non-spanked child, now wouldn't you.

Since you only know though if YOU were spanked or not in childhood
this leaves you with a terrible logical dilemna, now doesn't it?

show me how
your theory work in real life situations.

You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
worked at. I await your arrival.

Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
publish your results?

Give me an address and contact number to mail to and call.

We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls.

Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP
as
a threat.

Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf

"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

I didn't make a claim that violent crime by youth was down, or didn't
you notice.

And I certainly don't believe that arrests are a proper subject for
policy or law related to juveniles. I'd say CONVICTIONS tend to be
more accurate. You got the CONVICTION RATE somewhere, Doan?

"arresst rate" (sic) Funny about that. Did they make the error or did
you as you tried to play with the data?

Juvenile "violent crime rate" is not the juvenile "crime rate" or is
that a bit over your head? I said crime rate. Go look up page.

I've noticed you see only that which you wish.

To that problem of yours I offer this:

1967 and the years before and around it were not considered a prime
reporting methodology period. In fact, as the impact of computers and
their proliferation in government increased, much reporting and
tabulation was vastly improved and incidences of all things being
counted tended to show rapid increase.

Would you say that was because there WAS more, or there was MORE
tabulated more rapidly, thus being more accurately reported?

In 1967 it was difficult to find any computer outside a mainframe
connected workstation and at that many card readers and tape punchers
were still in use. That's how primative things were.

I know. I work inside computers back then, standing upright. That's
how large they had to be. A computer was a room.

In 1990 I walked into a government office to discuss how they coud
best use the what we'd now call a primitive database they wanted
developed for their applications...I had been more accustomed to the
business world where it still wasn't all that common for every person
to have a computer on their desk, but I was stunned to see three
floors of employees with 300 workers in that building with only ONE
personal desktop and ONE operator and NO backup for the operator OR
the computer per floor. One to a hundred ratio.

1990...and no, not a typo. That was a state office. I was instrumental
in getting computers on every four workers desks, then every two, and
finally everyone...but it took four years to do that, and they have
not really caught up IT wise to the business world.

You just cannot think outside the box, can you Doan?

Everything you find that disagrees with you you shut down and
ignore...let us say stupidily rather than dishonestly (my first guess
though)... and go for the gusto.

Hell, one still has problems collecting crime data. It was discovered
a few years back that cops were routinely tabulating any beef they
went out on as "firearms" related if someone three floors up being
questioned responded to that first question cops rightly like to ask,
"do you have any weapons on your or in the house, guns, etc.?" with a
"Yes."

Try this:

http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/pu...imeUpdate2.pdf

Notice the difference between Crime and Violent crime reported.

Why did you avoid, or were unable to find, that even the Violent crime
rate had gone up to a 1988 high and dropped since with a peak but a
return in recent years to the 88 level...and that only the Violent
crime while all juvenile crime dropped, with no peaks.

Why, I wonder did you pick 1967 to begin..hmmmm, I just can't figure
it out...why so far back...hmmmm... Oh well one day I shall penetrate
the inscrutable gentleman and his reasoning...won't I?

Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go.

About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated,
that
is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I
not
only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods
of
any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens
and
mentally ill teens.

As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other
practitioners
were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading
everywhere
even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not
allowed.

LOL! You are not puffering, are you?

Are you?

What is the recidivism rate?

In 1986 when I left treatment work the adolescent's I worked with had
a 15% recidivism rate. Interestingly the most damanged by psychiatric
evaluation (that's not psychological, but neurological testing by MDs)
showed the best progress of all.

They had been, because of the more extreme behaviors, more extremely
dealt with CP wise before coming to us. Gentle support and training,
re-parenting if you will, had a profound effect on them, though they
held on to their more unpleasant survival behaviors bit more
tenaciously and for a longer period.

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
anyway and get away with it.

Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
you don't want that, right? ;-)

On the contrary. I celebrate the human spirit in that they don't ALL
turn into "Enron Executives."

I just prefer not taking those kind of risks, what with how 95% or so
of humans treat each other. Me, I prefer hanging out with the 5%. Very
peaceful and joyfilled.

BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many
means
outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately
to
go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my
post)
for long periods of time.

LOL!

Isn't it nice when we can have a good laugh together? {-]

THOSE are allowed.

Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)

Absolutely. Not only protested, but put my job and career on the line.

And when I was used, after a 3 month successful demonstration project
with only my own clients, to instruct other treament personnel in how
to deal with what became formerly difficult children some of those
people cried when they got the point. How cruel it had been to hurt
children to force them to comply...and I didn't do anything other than
teach the methods I knew.

Their response was spontaneous.

Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
applied without striking.

In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked
with
was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that
took
the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the
board
of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.

WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it, Kane.
What is the recidivism rate before and after?

See up page.

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!

Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?

LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)

How did you decide that my calling you a name excused you from
answering the challenge you yourself posed?

We know, but I'm curious if you do.

Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for
the
social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address
nice
nice issues. Monies come to study harm.

You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the
funding
agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
contention.

Funny, Straus
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.

No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
spanking is less effective then a little spanking.

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? ;-)

Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in
a
sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only
don't
they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see
if
they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are
as
important to the process as the adults.

I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
years.

"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share their
dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when you
look at what happenned to them the last time they told their secret?"

and
"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has
taken
liberties witht the small amount of information available on the
tribe
and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject
and
make your own decisions."

Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)

No, the Senoi did. And you seem to be unaware of the last sentence.
But then you yourself are something of a liberty taker.

That there are few left and or their denial might be product of their
gentleness? Hmmm...you really do stretch, don't you.

Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and
punishes
that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and
murder,
and low child abuse rates.

There's a good boy.

Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)

Sure, no problem.....R R R R R (because I know you DIDN'T or you'd
never have been so stupid as to post such a challenge...wait...I'm
wrong, you've been just this stupid before).

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

I know how hard a time you have seeing what you don't want to see so
go to the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, squint real
hard, and read it out loud...no LOUDER, dummy.

Now I have a problem with government self reporting...they did declare
a blip in one part of their article (I won't call it a report), but
had to get honest at the bottom of the page, so let's look further,
shall we.

Ah, here's one...and not that since 1984 they haven't counted children
16 years of age and up as juveniles...yet the juvenile crime rate
trended upward pretty steadily.

Gosh, I thought caning solved that kind of problem in Singapo
http://reference.allrefer.com/countr...gapore162.html

Note the following from the article:

"In 1984, few juveniles were charged with committing serious crimes.
Juveniles were involved in no murders, 8 percent of the sexual
assaults, and 10 percent of the armed robberies.
"
And of course we know the draconian inforcement that goes on from then
to the present yet, we have:

"Police solved 18 percent of the almost 23,000 reported cases of
theft, and juveniles were believed to be responsible for 12 percent of
these crimes."

Finally, Doan, are you going to keep citing a country that is a
dictatorship under the same ruler, "Goh Chok Tong, who became the
country's Prime Minister in 1990, succeeded Lee Kwan Yew, creator of a
concept of "Asian values" opposed to "Western democracy." Mr Goh is
also the leader of the People's Action Party-Singapore's ruling party
for the past 43 years-which relies on the infallible support of both
private and state-controlled press groups. "This ultra-sophisticated
dictatorial regime," as one opponent puts it, allows its inhabitants
to access foreign media, but the local press rarely prints news about
the country's situation. Some Internet sites, maintained by the few
remaining independent journalists, are striving to freely inform the
public at the risk of being sued for libel, or imprisonment."

Yes, canning has created a paradise of crime free streets and homes.
Except for the crimes committed by the government.

Did you know it is illegal to chew gum or possess it in Singapore
without a prescription?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ngapore%22+gum

I wonder if they cane for one flavor, and hang you for another.

For such a crime free nation the police department web site sure has
an intersting crime watch page:

http://www.spf.gov.sg/

Have I mentioned you are stupid?

And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension
and
in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I
offer
this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some
of
the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.

Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children
for
centuries and it worked" bull****.


http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf

Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain and
believe! ;-)

Do you really believe that science is a fact based institution?

It's as much a religion as any other. Grow up.

If it were truly fact based and had been we would find NO scientific
knowledge challengable any more.

Is that the case?

Well, findings on spanking by social scientists would, I think, fall
under that same caveat.

Doan

So tell us, Doan, what's your scientific opinion on the question you
still haven't answered.

Scientifically, and logically, where is the transition point from non
abusive CP to abusive injury? Not the end points, that you rely on so
heavily to support and apologize for spankers with, but the middle or
whever you wish to claim you place it.

You know, that old spanking vs beating question, like "if you anti
spanking zealots can't tell the difference", and "logic, the anti
spanking zeolots...etc.," as YOU CAN answer for us?

Cough it up, dummy.

Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:20:03 -0800, Doan wrote:



In article , Kane
wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response
to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

Actually, they are both subsets of hitting. But a subset is not the
equivalence of the whole set! Just as oranges, lemons and
grapefruits
are subsets of citrus.

You can beat someone with a stick, a metal chain, a hammer, or an
open
palm. Beating children with an open palm is spanking.

And immunizing children is to inject them with germs???? Cutting
children
nails is to cut off parts of their bodies????

Spanking is violence directed at children with the purpose to
intimidate them into compliance.

And I thought I can have a rational discourse! What next? Abortion
is murder??? ;-)

Hey, Doan, let me help you out here. I guess you haven't noticed my
flurry of recent prior posts asking you to tell us the cutoff point
for spanking, when it goes into beating.

I know you are busy formulating the intensely scientific and logical
reponses you just did in this post, but you could really flatten our
debating opponents and all us anti-spanking zealots if you'd just come
up with the answer to what you say we can't tell the
difference...spanking vs beating.

Help us understand, Sensei.

Do you need more time? {;-]}


Doan


Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:20:03 -0800, Doan wrote:



In article , Kane
wrote:

I see you have been going anywhere but to my question in response
to
your defense of spanking and OUR confusion about spanking being
beating.

spanking is a subset of beating.

Actually, they are both subsets of hitting. But a subset is not the
equivalence of the whole set! Just as oranges, lemons and
grapefruits
are subsets of citrus.

You can beat someone with a stick, a metal chain, a hammer, or an
open
palm. Beating children with an open palm is spanking.

And immunizing children is to inject them with germs???? Cutting
children
nails is to cut off parts of their bodies????

Spanking is violence directed at children with the purpose to
intimidate them into compliance.

And I thought I can have a rational discourse! What next? Abortion
is murder??? ;-)

Hey, Doan, let me help you out here. I guess you haven't noticed my
flurry of recent posts asking you to tell us the cutoff point for
spanking, when it goes into beating.

I know you are busy formulating the intensely scientific and logical
reponses you just did in this post, but you could really flatten our
debating opponents and all us anti-spanking zealots if you'd just come
up with the answer to what you say we can't tell the
difference...spanking vs beating.

Help us understand, Sensei.

Do you need more time? {;-]}


Doan


Kane

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 15:45:06 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, ChrisScaife wrote:

How would he a better person if I was beating him (the animal
society
way) instead of teaching him interaction according to modern
principles of human society.

I don't know of animals that beat their young.
Only degenerate humans could be that base.
;-)

I saw the same argument used against abortion! Do you know of any
animal
that put their youngs in diaper??? ;-)

That is because animals are not able to do that,
but they are able to injure their offspring.
They choose not to.

Actually, it depends on what kind of animals we are talking about;
some do
eat their youngs. You are right that most animals are very
protective of
their youngs. It is ironic then to think that humans are difference
and
as parents, we don't know how to take care of our youngs.

Until you look at our contemporaries and our ancestors, who both
routinely raped their young, killed them at their pleasure, and beat
and worked them to death from tiem to time....or is this view of yours
protecting, encouraging, and apologizing for parents who us CP in the
same vein...."this is parenting, by Doan the Duplicitious."

If you've been
listen to the anti-spanking zealotS,

I have, more intensely.

we have been doing it wrong since
the beginning of time!

I've always thought those flatearthers were right and instead of
telephones, and now computers, we should still be hollering from
mountain tops to send messages.

Hell on graphic images though.


As for abortion... I would rather not start on that one right now.

Chris

It's your choice! :-)

Brilliant!

Well, compared to your gems above. {;-]}


Doan


Kane