A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Teenagers faced with spankings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 9th 06, 02:38 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.


Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?


Nope.

But we've loved seeing yours. Via the online court system records in
Iowa, and your 'testimony' to the HW&MC hearing, and your ghosted
'Pleading' for the mother.

Hot stuff.

So, have you an argument to make with my claims and comments concerning
spanking alternatives, or are you here to harass rather than argue?

I offer you argument -- debate -- constantly, and you run. Ever notice?

0:-



0:-]

  #22  
Old December 9th 06, 05:04 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.


Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

He is also an "published" researcher and yet unable to read a simple
chart! ;-)

Doan


  #23  
Old December 9th 06, 05:24 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into three
categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often"
spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers who
sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly worse
than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those who
often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still. But
the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having "lost it"
were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all - slightly
worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach much
meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that that
study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes a
significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous spanking
is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results extremely
close to the results of mothers who never spanked.


Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also
found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the
outcomes. In other words,
the non-cp methods were no better than spanking.

AF

  #24  
Old December 9th 06, 05:55 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ps.com...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


If parents have completely unrealistic expectations, the
results can be tragic, especially if the parents feel like it's their
duty
to force their children to live up to their unrealistic expecations no
matter how harsh a punishment is required.

We are in agreement. And here in this newsgroup, aps, I have seen again
and again, pro spankers discuss circumstances where they would spank,
and demonstrating they have extremely unrealistic expectations of
children. The idea that any child, for instance, under the age of 12 or
so, would "willfully disobey." It's nonsense.

They are following natural imperatives to explore the universe. All an
aware parent needs to do is learn how to question and investigate and
when the parent has figured out (even if wrong) some probable natural
imperative the child is reacting to, simply show them how to get their
appropriately. Wanted behavior replacing unwanted behavior.

This isn't rocket science, and no child with parents that can figure
this out is "spanked." It's too damned obvious to a parent that can
think, and is compassionate (even in the absence of exact evidence)
that the child does not need spanking to learn.


My personal experience from when I was a child proves beyond any possible
doubt that you are wrong about this.


It appears we are off to a bad start.

Are you sure that your personal experience is not in conflict with
facts from other sources?

And the personal experience, in fact, should be the only arbiter of
'the truth?"


I'll take just a few more minutes to clear up some possible confusion. Your
central thesis here was, "The idea that any child, for instance, under the
age of 12 or so, would 'willfully disobey.' It's nonsense." I went ahead
and quoted your expansion on that theme before I started my reply, but it
should have been clear that the focus of my reply was on the age at which
children can willfully disobey.

I know I wasn't always a typical child growing up, or even all that close to
being one. But if I could make deliberate choices to do things I knew I'd
been told not to at age six, then either I was able to do it at HALF the age
of other children, or your claim is ridiculous. And I am not willing to
believe I was THAT different from other children, or that I radically
reinvented two separate memories for no good reason.

Any valid theoretical model has to account for the ENTIRE range of people's
personal experiences. If you were an honest, reasonably openminded searcher
for truth, your response to seeing persoanl experiences that clash with your
theoretical models would be to try to figure out what about your theoretical
models is - or at least might be - off target. But instead, you seem to
reject the personal experiences of anyone whose personal experiences don't
fit your theoretical models as being impossible just because they don't fit
your models.

When you see what you want to see and ignore or reject anything that doesn't
fit your prejudices, it doesn't matter if you have fifty years of experience
or even if you had five hundred years of experience. All the extra time
gave you was more time to have collected stories where people's personal
experiences support your biases while at the same time ignoring or rejecting
any stories of people's experiences that clash with your biases. And the
fact that you use your education and experience as an excuse to reject what
other people tell you from their personal experiences just makes it even
harder for you to see the entire truth.

As for your education, too much trust in education can be dangerous when it
leaves a person feeling like he already has all the answers, and like
anything in the real world that doesn't fit what he learned in school must
be wrong. When reality and education collide, a wise person will recognize
the collision as an indication that what he learned in school is, at the
very least, not the entire picture of the truth.

It's frustrating when a person of your intelligence and experience isn't
willing to listen and try to be genuinely objective. You know things that I
don't, and I have experiences that you could learn from, and putting those
together could help both of us develop a better understanding. But when you
refuse to genuinely listen, and refuse to accept any possibility that your
understanding of the world is less than complete, trying to discuss things
with you is mostly just a waste of time.

Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

There is always the possibility I've been wrong...why, back in 75 I can
recall that I was...well, that's a long story.

Want to start over?

Start with my statement you follow your claim with. Thanks.

Kane


Sometimes children simply decide that
something that they've been told not to do is enough fun that they want
to
do it anyhow. Granted, if parents take enough time, they can often find
a
way to redirect the children's choices by offering them something that's
almost as much fun, or maybe even more fun, that they wouldn't have to
feel
guilty about doing. But that doesn't mean the children's disobedience
isn't
willful.

When I read your claim, I started thinking back trying to find the first
occasions when I can be absolutely sure that I willfully disobeyed my
parents - where I knew I wasn't allowed to do something but made a
deliberate choice to do it anyhow. I can come up with two situations
when I
was no older than six, and possibly younger. (I know I couldn't have
been
older because we moved to a different house when I was six, but beyond
that,
I have no way of pinpointing my age.)

One situation involved playing with the shower curtain in a way that had
the
bottom of the curtain in the tub but had it draped over the side hanging
over the outside so my younger brother and I could put water in the part
of
the curtain where it sagged over the outside. (It's kind of hard to
explain.) My brother and I had been told repeatedly not to do it because
my
parents were afraid we'd break the shower curtain. But I couldn't figure
out how what we were doing could break it, and I knew I was being too
careful to spill water outside the tub, so I wasn't inclined to give up
my
fun and obey my parents. As it turned out, the shower curtain did break,
and my brother and I got in trouble. (The flaw in my reasoning was that
I
didn't even begin to comprehend that the place that would break was where
the curtain was held up by hooks through holes, far above my head. Now I
can recognize that the stress on the holes was vastly greater than the
stress on the part I was paying attention to as a little kid.)

The other early occasion I remember involved vitamin pills. We didn't
generally have candy around, but chewable vitamin pills tasted good, and
there were times when I snuck extra ones even though I knew I wasn't
supposed to.

I'll strongly agree that a lot of things young children do are caused by
things other than willful disobedience. Sometimes they don't even
understand that they are doing something wrong. Other times, they forget
about rules they are supposed to obey - especially if they get carried
away
with what they are doing. But the idea that children have to be around
age
12 before they are capable of making willful choices to disobey is
completely preposterous.



  #25  
Old December 9th 06, 06:25 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into three
categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often"
spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers who
sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly worse
than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those who
often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still. But
the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having "lost it"
were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all - slightly
worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach much
meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that that
study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes a
significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous spanking
is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results extremely
close to the results of mothers who never spanked.


Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also
found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the
outcomes. In other words,
the non-cp methods were no better than spanking.

AF


Hihihi.


You are lying again. I've repeatedly pointed out that out of the four
alternatives examined by the study. three were punitive.

Can't debate the actually issue so you just keep repeating yourself.

How quaint.

So no, we don't know that the one that wasn't punitive was no better
than spanking, because it was not separated out from the punitive
methods.

Too bad you have to keep lying about this, Doan. But then you never did
have a single argument that flew.

Where's the study that shows that non-punitive methods are no better
than CP, by the way?

In fact, we've waited years for the study that shows that CP works
better than any method.

The logic of the spanking advocates. Brilliant.

0 : - ]

  #26  
Old December 9th 06, 06:26 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.


Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

He is also an "published" researcher


Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

and yet unable to read a simple
chart! ;-)


Show your proof.

Doan


Aline/Alina

  #27  
Old December 9th 06, 06:56 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

He is also an "published" researcher


Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

So you never claimed that you are a researcher? ;-)

and yet unable to read a simple
chart! ;-)


Show your proof.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...84d67c ce3614

QED!


Doan


Aline/Alina


Anne From Dreamland

  #28  
Old December 9th 06, 07:03 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into three
categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often"
spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers who
sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly worse
than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those who
often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still. But
the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having "lost it"
were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all - slightly
worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach much
meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that that
study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes a
significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous spanking
is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results extremely
close to the results of mothers who never spanked.


Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also
found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the
outcomes. In other words,
the non-cp methods were no better than spanking.

AF


Hihihi.


You are lying again. I've repeatedly pointed out that out of the four
alternatives examined by the study. three were punitive.

So they are non-cp methods are they not? And they are no better than
spanking, are they not? So who is lying? ;-)

Can't debate the actually issue so you just keep repeating yourself.

How quaint.

So no, we don't know that the one that wasn't punitive was no better
than spanking, because it was not separated out from the punitive
methods.

Are you saying that non-spanking parents are all non-punitive?

Too bad you have to keep lying about this, Doan. But then you never did
have a single argument that flew.

Hihihi! the proven liar here is you!

Where's the study that shows that non-punitive methods are no better
than CP, by the way?

Where is the one that show non-punitive methods are better than spanking?
Come on, Kane. Can you look through your file cabinets and produce one?
Come on, just one! ;-)

In fact, we've waited years for the study that shows that CP works
better than any method.

The logic of the spanking advocates. Brilliant.

Hahaha! The logic of an anti-spanking zealotS...

Doan

0 : - ]



  #29  
Old December 9th 06, 07:12 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Teenagers faced with spankings

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

refuse to genuinely listen, and refuse to accept any possibility that your
understanding of the world is less than complete, trying to discuss things
with you is mostly just a waste of time.


Hahaha! Don't waste your time, Nathan. Remember, you are talking to an
anti-spanking zealotS!

Doan


  #30  
Old December 9th 06, 07:43 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Teenagers faced with spankings


Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:

Kane wrote
Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this
and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well
as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that.

Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert?

He is also an "published" researcher


Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published.

So you never claimed that you are a researcher? ;-)


I never claimed I was a published researcher, so you are lying above,
as usual, Doan.

and yet unable to read a simple
chart! ;-)


Show your proof.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...84d67c ce3614

QED!


And I pointed out that I had done a quick calculation in my head and
missed some entries from the chart.

So, Doan, when you claim I am "unable" to read a chart, you are lying
again.

I certainly can read it, and like anyone else I can make an error and
admit it. Anyone else but you, liar.

You never admit your mistakes, and you come back and repeat them just
as you are doing now. Here IS my post that responds to your current
lie, with my actual comments, rather than your lies.

Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy?

Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today.

You are dishonorable.







0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
.....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his
deliberate lies....

Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY
to the public again!
[snip]
That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He
took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is
the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator",
not the actual rate!

I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language,
or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your
pick. I chose both, in your case.

Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED!
{snip}
I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different
meaning from the original one.

You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk.

Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS
OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!!

{snip}
There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the
chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy.

13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an
ass. Or a monkey.

Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID?

How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out.

The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some
of which reported in prior years, just not 2004.

Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT
STUPIDITY!!!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm

39 then reported, according to this chart.

84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid.

84.2% of 38 is 31.996!

Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again.

Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38
Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32
Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2

32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance
indicator.

Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-)
33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID!

But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone
believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the
abuse rate nationaly by foster parents.

So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and
Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-)

It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple
reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this
country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of
child abuse, hence we don't know.

Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!!

But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT
caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as
foster parents can.

Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them?
Boy, you are STUPID!

The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it
was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting
to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the
first to know.

Other cases come up mostly by police reports.

Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed
when they were young.

The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the
abuse rate of bios that are caught.

Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of
considerably proportion.

Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study,
Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which
they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population?
Hihihi!
Let's clear the air here, first.

Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again?

You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending
it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written
by me.

Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple
chart!


Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of
entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final
year for some reason.

You didn't notice that?

Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30
years!!!


Yep.

You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published
researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!!


Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published.

You can't read but you sure can lie.

Doan


You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable
monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one.

I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call
it a "lie."

You are one sick little ****.

But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read.

0:-


And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable
researchers know that the actual count on the general population is
about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire
population has an ulcer.

Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they
exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are
not as yet countable.

Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know
about them.

Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their
children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and
even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an
adult and reports it.

Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is
popping up very late in the cycle?

No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim
that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or
liars; Doananators.

0:-



Doan








Doan


Aline/Alina


Anne From Dreamland


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Teenagers Seek Help From Psychiatrists Jan Kids Health 29 April 23rd 06 05:53 PM
Third of US teenagers are unfit Roman Bystrianyk Kids Health 1 January 3rd 06 03:57 AM
Teenagers' behaviour 'worsening' Roman Bystrianyk Kids Health 1 September 20th 04 12:12 PM
PA: Erie Co., CYS failure-Busy chasin' spankings? Fern5827 Spanking 0 June 14th 04 04:19 PM
Why are so many teenagers so foul mouthed and disgusting? [email protected] General 8 April 13th 04 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.