Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts

wrote:


On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Interesting. All of the prisoners that
he interviewed were spanked as children.

Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?

I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.

Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
pro spankers and apologists.

What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
they are the victim themselves.

It is an area fraught with obstacles.

I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
learning and their mental health.

Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
dysfunctional.

A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
through lack of exercise.

I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
intellectual exceller.

One could do a study of
most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
and
find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
children.

No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.

They don't come from being NOT punished.

What does that study show?

Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
don't you find one?

I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
is speculation only.

I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.

Have a good one,

Kane

Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
psychological abuse.

To attempt to do so is simply wasting your time as you continue to throw out
utter nonsense and use examples which do not apply to the majority of
situations that many of us here wish to address.

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts

wrote:


On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Interesting. All of the prisoners that
he interviewed were spanked as children.

Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?

I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.

Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
pro spankers and apologists.

What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
they are the victim themselves.

It is an area fraught with obstacles.

I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
learning and their mental health.

Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
dysfunctional.

A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
through lack of exercise.

I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
intellectual exceller.

One could do a study of
most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
and
find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
children.

No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.

They don't come from being NOT punished.

What does that study show?

Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
don't you find one?

I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
is speculation only.

I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.

Have a good one,

Kane

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:

Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
and
humiliation in parenting.

One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
Kane wrote:
Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
very
soon in this reply of yours.

No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.

It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
information that is relevant.

Kane wrote:
Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
given
by that child when she grows up?

I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
stretching
a bit aren't you?

I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.

My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.

Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
can be
painful.

I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
Children get plenty of that, from the very first.

They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
according to how the mother presents to them.

It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
behavior.

I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
behavior" something of a puzzle.

I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?

It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
painful.

She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
man. She was a Thorougbred.

It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
make easily.

She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.

I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.

And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
all.

The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
was so bad I couldn't work with her.

He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.

I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.

All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?


yet there is a vast
difference between 'abuse' and 'spanking'.
Kane wrote:
A claim frequently made and rarely defended with any rigor at all.
There is a very fine and tenuous line between the two. Many
variables
are involved. The child, the parent, the events, the time of day,
the
reasons for the abuse or spanking, even the health of the child,
and
much more.

But it is YOU who seem to equate both equally.

Yes I do. It's you folks that want to claim that I'm talking about
comparing a punch in the face with a spanking. I'm not. But I am
saying that there is a degree of abuse to spanking, in fact using
punishment when a child is trying desperately to learn her environment
and needs a willing coach and protector. One to help, the other to
keep her alive and relatively undamaged as she explores.

There is a hell of a
difference between a swat on the butt with one's open hand and
beating them
unconscious with one's fist.

You make is sound as though I am suggesting that abuse is only beating
a child unconscious with one's fist. No, there are abusive elements in
even the mildest punishments. The abuse is to the child's development.

Instead of protecting the child from harm but supporting their
exploration the punishing parent simply tries to stop behavior. I
presume some know to at least present some alternatives to enrich the
child's exploratory attempt, but I don't see anyone claiming they do
that at all when we discuss spanking here. It's always about an
unwanted action being stopped. As though that was all there is to it.

Apparently, you cannot defferentiate between
the two in your conclusions that all spanking equals abuse.

Certainly a punch in the face is abuse. Who would argue that.

It is not the only abuse.

I believe that it is abusive not to support a child's learning about
the world and their environment and not protecting them from
harm....simultaneously.

It's not rocket science....honest. It is so easy and fun that when I
teach people how to do it they are delighted to come back later and
tell me how it replaced their punishing ways.....and the payoff was
huge. The child does BETTER at finding alternative ways, safe ways, to
explore, and trusts the parent ... so are not afraid to ask for help.

I wrote:
To try to qualify the link by
using the state of the world and it's societies, you are ignoring
the
ever
growing psychobabble that we have been spoon fed for the past
twenty
years
about the evils of spanking.

Kane wrote:
I'm not ignoring it at all. I tend to view it, as I have written,
as
weak compared to my observations for over 40 years, in both
professional mileu and private life.

Most of the rest of us have had 'observations' for just as long or
longer
Kane.

Over 40 years? That would be a surprize. How old are you?

I've observed both spanked and non spanked kids, AND in fact reported
abusive situations to cps myself.

I do hope you were very careful to differentiate.

One of the things about personal
observation is the ability to distinguish between useful spanking and
outright abuse. We are given minds to make that distinction with.

Some children are very hardy and can easily survive a good deal of
"useful spanking" while others are more sensitive and can be damaged
by too harsh a word.

Now who is, as you accused me of doing, treating all chidlren the
same?


Perhaps the absence of spanking is the greatest link to the state
of
the
world today?

Doubtful given the prevalence.

Since more and more begin to follow that advice almost daily.

Kane wrote:
All you must do is come up with a lot of children who weren't
spanked
or punished in our prisons and mental wards. Should be easy. Give
it a
shot.

Another straw man here Kane?

A straw man argument is one that directs an the argument against a
claim everyone agrees upon or that is weak.

That isn't what I was doing. I am asking you to find children that
weren't spanked or punished in prisons and mental wards. The claim
frequently is that children not disciplined (and we know that means
punished to the spanking set) are at high risk of misbehaving and some
have made a claim that they are more likely to become criminals.

I'm simply asking if you agree and if so please point out the
punishment free inmates. Others have tried and failed for a very good
reason. Punishment is abusive and moreso in the child that needs
support and protection. They sometimes do not have the luck to turn
out well, and the inmates are rich with this population.

It was YOU who made the claim that spanking
leads to all these conditions, not I, nor any of the other debaters
in here.

Yes, I know. I also cited a Dr. Fischer who was or is with University
of Chicago School of Social Science that tried to find some unspanked
and I presume unpunished folks in jail and failed....not one. He
couldn't find even one.

Had to give up the study. No population to observe.

Thus far, you've failed to show credibility in providing that proof.

I have to prove the unpunished children don't go to jail or mental
wards at the rate that the spanked and otherwise punished do?

One can't prove a negative.

On the other hand do YOU think that it's difficult to find unspanked
folks in prison.

I don't need to put my finger in a lightsocket to know what will
happen if I'm grounded, or hit ground and hotside in the socket. I
know the same thing about prisons. I really do trust the folks that
work with that population not to lie to me.


Caveat: Note that other researches have gone bust trying to find
them.
I never had and I've looked.

Or is that beyond your comprehension.

Not in the least. I began at age 19 to consider this issue. Very
shortly it became apparent to me that when the unspanked child
still
behaved badly it was more likely a product of other more severe
emotional or psychological punishments.

You still haven't considered but the tip of the subject.

What a silly thing to say. Not only have I "considered" it, but I've
gone far beyond it doing work to help children recover from it.

emotional abuse
can be much worse than physical abuse in many cases. I would much
prefer a
spanking than being abused emotionally, just as I would prefer a
spanking
over physical abuse. Again, you fail to look beyond a simple glance
at the
surface.

That is an assumption of yours. Not the truth.

I have to ask you: Why would you assume that an alternative to
spanking I would use to parent with is emotionally abusive?

I have never posted, and I've posted a lot, to these newsgroups, that
children should not be spanked but must be punished. I've never found
a single behavior of children that I couldn't, either by my superior
control of the environment (like put up a fence around the yard)
redirect into a richer experience.

The child reaching for the counter where the big kitchen knife is
needs two things. The knife needs to be put away....AND...THIS IS
IMPORTANT SO YOU'LL EXCUSE MY YELLING PLEASE....something else to do.

Do you know why Tupperware parties are so wonderfully profitable? R R
R R R R .... ask a mommy what the second most imporant use is for
Tupperware and she'll likely tell you: "To store things in."

They all know what the most imporant use is for the little guys.

I suppose you use 'reason' to a small child of one or two to keep
him
from
running into the street. Well it doesn't work.

There we go again. I do not "'reason'" with small children. I set
up
systems, as humans have had to do since the times when small
children
were the favorite prey of pack and predatory animals that preyed on
the edges of the human pack.

I can tell you have had absolutely no, or very limited contact with
small
children.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hubris.

I have had, unless you have been in the same work as I, contact with
thousands of children, both in and out of treatment settings. And from
toddler on up to teen.

Guess what, many of the grand 'systems' of conduct just don't
work with some children.

The reason they "don't work" is often that they are misapplied, or not
well enough understood. One of the best for the normal child and
parent is quite hard to learn unless one participates in a training
where one experiences the changes in self and others using the
skillset.

To darn bad too as it is so powerful it should be banned from common
use. More than one psychologist was less than happy with the tools
being released to the public domain. But Tom Gordon knew what he was
doing. Now the tools have become not only common place in parenting
but in human interpersonal relations at many levels. Management uses
them a lot.

Check out Tom Gordon's page at:

http://www.thomasgordon.com/


Tom died earlier this year, but his contribution to better relations
between people and especially his PET for parents and children is a
very real contribution to us all.

And the parent who truly understands this, knows
which children need reinforcement and which of their children don't.
Any
parent who approached teaching all of their children in exactly the
same way
is surely doomed to fail in their teachings of at least one of them.

Did you mention "straw man" earlier? I think you did. R R R R

I think you are rambling a bit. But then it's the use of a poorly
defined term I guess. What do you mean by "need reinforcement?"

I use a great deal of "reinforcement" with children, just as I did
with animals I trained, though the scope is somewhat different. I
simply didn't find I ever needed pain as a reinforcer.

The strongest reinforcement was proven in research to be intermitant
positive reinforcement...meaning you don't even have to do (like you
do with aversive pain) to use it every time to get the most compliant
response...just doing it from time to time works wonderfully...sounds
like it was made for busy parents, doesn't it? I think nature intended
it and made us responsive to it because that's what was used before
the morality police get ahold of us all.

My onw reinforcement consists of making it clear I am the protector,
and the coach, and the most trustworth and biggest supporter.

Now I presume some of this applies to parents who punish. I know they
don't punish all the time...I just contend they never have to punish
at all and they'll raise more psychologically healthy, eager, and
trusting learners, and in time, adults.


Jerry Alborn answered this question most eloquently some time back.
I'll point you to his comment:

http://tinyurl.com/rfzq

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...igy.com&rnum=1

Not only have I proven to my own satisfaction and written many
times
about the method I used to teach children not to run into traffic,
I
do know that punishment does not work to keep children from
attempting
to make street entries. I've posted this study before, and I'll
post
it again just for you, since you appear far more dedicated to
discrediting me than to searching for facts that might confound
your
locked in belief....three of which you've already shared with us.

No, Im discrediting your beliefs.

You may do that. I am discrediting yours after all.

I can wager that you never lived in the
inner city, on a heavily populated street whereby small children run
into
traffic all the time.

You'd be wrong then. I have lived in just such environments. And I saw
them spanked, jerked around, slapped, yelled at, and they still ran
toward the street. Mamma had to get a harness to keep them safe...what
should have been the solution in the beginning.

As a child I watched a friend of mine get his head
crushed by a truck's tire.

You have my sympathy. I lost my best childhood buddy, at 16, under the
weight of a old tricycle steering John Deere tractor on his dad's
contract with an oil or gas lease doing earth moving and road
building.

Was your friend not spanked sufficiently to save his life?

These things happen. He would not have survived no matter how much
spanking he had. Though I don't recall his dad or mom being spankers
or very punishing. Do you suppose he would have known not to get on
the tractor to earn some money had he been spanked properly?

Of course I suppose it's easy to simply lock the
small child up all day,

Why would you assume I mean that? Which of us accused the other,
erroneously of using a strawman argument? This is a classic.

but anyone who has had to chase one around for a few
hours surely knows that simply telling them something is bad just
simply
doesn't work.

Again, you assume that not spanking or punishing requires only the
actions you post in the paragraph above. I only need one or two things
that work for me, and neither (though I do tend to include verbal
instruction to lay down the memory track in the child's brain for
later use when they can understand what I meant) would require the
least bit of pain or fear.

And I rarely use the word 'bad' with either children or adults. I may
not like something someone does, but I will say so, not label them bad
or, in fact good. I hate it when I hear someone say to a human child,
"that's a good boy."

Trust me, if I ever say it to you, it's an insult. I have no right to
judge someone else's behavior as morally good or bad, only to judge if
I do not like it, or I like it. I'll tell you when I like what you
say.


Let's start with the bonifides of one of those you believe is
spoon-
feeding you psychobabble, shall we? Then I'll provide you with a
little note about what his observations showed on the very question
you bring up:

http://www.paxis.org/people/DR.%20Em...aphy-1999.html


And here is what he had to say about his study:

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:
"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project
designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged
children.
(Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading
cause
of death to young children in the United States.)
"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street
entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect
way
to gain parents' attention.
"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program,
called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are
simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe
players play on the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun
than playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on
increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been
spanked
many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to
do
it.
The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe
play,
the
children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"

Is that supposed to 'impress' someone who has lived in this
situation?

It's been my experience that many people stop learning anything new
after the age of 15 or so. They just extrapolate from what they
learned up to that point.

I don't care if you are impressed or not. I only care if you can
learn.

I
say it's total bull****, from another psychologist who simply wants
to get
his 'finding's published as some caveat.

Apparently he isn't just about being published. These folks paid for
his work:

"Dr. Embry has an international reputation in the area of designing,
testing and disseminating effective large-scale educational campaigns
to increase school and community safety, child safety, family
well-being and health. Those research projects have been contracted
and/or funded by such organizations as the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, U.S. Office of Education, the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, The Moerk Company Foundation, the W.T. Grant
Foundation, DuPont, IBM and grants from a number of other companies,
non-profit foundations, and foreign governments—particularly as a
National Research Advisory Council Senior Fellow in New Zealand."

I suppose you know better. To what do you attribute your knowledge
being superior to his?

First of all, giving a swat on the butt for approaching the street is
not
'NAGGING'.. lol.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was. Hey! He's even a Sunday
School teacher.

Once you've taught the small child that nearing the street
is painful, it stops, no need for 'nagging'. Sounds more like the
'talk to
your child approach' which has caused more children to run into the
streets.

It may sound like it but it is not. Can you support your claim that
"talk to your child" has caused more children to run into the streets?

Give them a 'positive' way, play on the grass etc? Again, you ASS U
ME that
the child is old enough to understand.

No, I assume that they can follow directions, and it feels good to a
child to follow directions given by an adult they trust to protect
them. When they are old enough to understand they don't need me to
tell them anything. They can figure out that a large metal body
impacting a small soft human body is painful and or deadly.

Where I lived, we had a small mound
of dirt between apartments, surrounded by concrete. Or in the back,
railroad tracks. Tell me HOW you find a positive play place in that
situation.

So the only way left to keep them from being run over was to spank
them into submission? I thought you said your friend got run over, his
skull crushed? Are you willing to claim he wasn't spanked
sufficiently?

LOL.. I can imagine a parent walking up to a child every few minutes
and
hand them stickers, or say, 'great job playing'.

Why would you imagine that? The conversation is much more specific.
And it only takes a time or two, unlike spanking that seems to go on
for quite some time before it takes, for the child to get it.

Get real. That scenario
only assumes that the child already has the ability to comprehend and
is
already avoiding dangerous situations.

No it doesn't. It assumes the child trusts the adult to instruct them
in safety concerns. Do you think Dr. Embry lied about the results he
said he observed?

Write and tell him. Me, I know he is correct as I've used the same
methods for other safety issues, and with my own children, I simply
kept them safe by where and how I took them around traffic, and when
they were of the right age I gave them The Flat Possum lesson.

You've only reinforced the nonsense of the pyschobabble just as I
suspected.

Psychobabble is when folks make claims not based on good evidence. I
consider Dr. Embry's evidence quite conclusive, but I still tested it
out myself. I was surprized at how well it worked teaching my children
not to touch the hot wood stove. Though I kept a pretty good barrier
around it my youngest was a very eager explorer of everything.

Yet, when I simply told him and showed him, by using a piece of beef,
what happens when a baby touches his hand to the stove he got it just
fine...what was more important...he trust me completely...as I had
prove to him again and again I could be trusted. I never hit him, nor
punished him.


So you see it's not about reasoning with the child as in cause and
effect or other abstractions (and they are to the toddler), but to
simple management of what abilities they do have...though this does
NOT in any way endorse the idea that the child can be left
unattended
by a busy street.

LOL.. now you've done what I predicted you would, portray that the
parent
simply leaves their child unattended on a busy street.

I just said one does NOT leave a child unattended. Why would you
assume that I claim the parent does?

For an 'expert' with
much observation, you apparently have not chased a child down who
decides
it's fun to 'play' ..

Sure I have, and I enrich their experience immediately with things
that divert them. If they are older my strategy changes.

example.. I took my sister and her kids camping. My
two year old nephew decided he needed to go to the restroom and
started
running towards it. Only problem was, we were behind it and there
was a six
foot drop off at the retaining wall.

Two year olds should not be running loose. I think you are now making
things up to support an argumentment you know you have lost. Unless
you are disabled a two year old can't outrun you.

I nearly dropped from exhaustion as I chased him.. calling him only
made him
laugh and run faster.. I managed to catch him JUST as his one foot
went
over the edge as he was looking back at me. By applying YOUR
tactics, I
would have wound up with a dead nephew instead of a near heart
attack.

No, if you had applied my tactics the child would have trusted you at
the first command to stop. Children that are punished tend to do the
kind of things you mentioned.

Are you going to try and tell us now that this child is an unspanked
child?

Even before one can learn to reason, they learn what behavior is
harmful. A
child will not touch a hot stove again once burned because of his
curiosity,

They assumption they won't try again is disproven, and waiting for
them to find out when they are too young to be taught with
non-punishing methods my and has resulted in serious lifelong scars
for the child. I'll pass thank you and supervise my child until she
is
old enough to teach and even then I'll supervise.

BULL****.. the fact IS proven, time and time again. Just ask ANYONE
who
has touched a hot stove, or hot iron and ask if they ever did it
again?

That is a direct natural consequence. Of course we learn not to touch
something that gave us pain.

Spanked or not spanked.

Who is giving the pain, the stove or the parent? A child too young to
differentiate, and they are at two, your example, is just shown that
the adult is untrustworthy. They still don't know the stove can hurt
them.

They learn it better when it is taught to them by someone they can
trust. I have seen well "disciplined" children (that is taught with
pain) still touch the stove.

Your assumption that it is not proven shows a disdain for human
intelligence, even at the most primitive level.

I made NO such assumption or claim. Please point out where I did.
Immediate pain from an action or object will cause and aversive
reaction the next time similar circumstances are encountered.

The probem is that you and other spankers and punishers assume the
child is reacting to the object or action...when they are in fact
reacting to the source of the pain...the parent.

They learn to trust the parent to hurt them.

Isn't that an interesting way to learn about the world?

I believe that much of the criminal and careless and neglegent
behavior in the world is a result of just such betrayal of children by
their parents. The child grows up somewhat compliant, but not to
nature, not to something they have truly learned, and can later reason
out, but only the memory of pain drives them.

Very sad.


and a swat on the behind which may wind up saving it's life is
well
worthwhile in the long run.

The stove is a direct logical consequence and may serve to teach
the
desired behavior (at the risk of a severe burn of course) one
cannot
allow the logical teaching consequence of letting a child be hit by
a
care to learn not to go into traffic.

Before the age of reason it is quite confusing to the child to be
running and playing, unaware of any impending danger, and have a
giant
swoop one up and lay on with vigor the child's behind.


The words "car," "traffic," "street," and "don't," are very likely
not
going to be processed accurately, and we don't usually when we have
sudden pain and fear layed on by someone.

Nonsense again. The swat on the butt is clearly associated with the
action
itself.

If they are too young to understand, and that IS the argument for the
use of spanking, then no such association can be argued. A child of
two is just barely into the differentiation of self from environment.
They are unaware of their actions. They do not experience an action as
theirs, only as happening to them. They cannot sort out what you
claim.

Again, you assume that a child has less intelligence than an animal
who learns by association the consequences surrounding the event.

Up to a point they do have less intelligence. A child of two is not
the match of a Border Collie that is mature. And they are mature at
about 1.5 years. I've seen Border Collies hide things from children of
two and the child couldn't find it.

A chimpanzee that is an adult is far more intelligent, operationally,
than a child. The child could not feed themselves if food were not
made available. A mature chimp finds it's own food.

In fact most mothers that pay attention, and most have to, know
that
saying "don't" or "no" to a toddler will very likely result in them
doing exactly what they were asked not to do, spank or no spank.

Most spankers, especially those that kid themselves, wind up
supervising just like we non punishers, and finally getting the
child
to the age they get it.....but we don't kid ourselves that it was
punishment that did it. As we know it's the passage of time and the
developing brain that much more likely turned the trick.

Right.. that's why so many are self indulgent, spoiled little brats
who
generally wind up bribing their way through life because they had so
much
success at upsetting the parents and getting exactly what they wanted
in
order to follow prescribed behavior.

You have described the psychologically punished child (which includes
spanking) very nicely. The fact is you haven't seen what you claim.
Unpunished children do NOT behave in this way. They tend to be
empathetic, helpful, industrious, and out of the news. It's is the
punished child you describe.


I pity those who feel they can use 'reason' and 'logic' on a one
or
two year
old,

Me to, right along with those that think the child will understand
the
logic of being whacked a good'un and had words babbled at him or
her.

and just hope they don't realize how flawed and deadly their
handling
of a situation can truly be.

On the contrary. The flaw much more likely arrises in the parent
that
believes, because the child froze a few times out of fear with the
adult present, that they will do so when danger threatens. The
child
under six is going to have a very difficult time connecting the
danger
to the freezing because they will not have absorbed with any
meaning
what the defined danger actually is.

Your talking in circles again Kane, showing you've truly lost the
logic of
your debate.

I am not and have not.

Children are much more intelligent and much more manipulative
than you can even comprehend.

Nature drives them to explore and experiment. They are not thinking
about manipulating, nor are they "intelligent" in the sense of
abstract thought or cause and effect reasoning. They know things
happen in sequence, but they do not know why, in the sense an adult
knows, until they begin at 6 or 7, applying all those years of data
collecting.

A child that has been punished through their early years is somewhat
crippled at 7 when they try to figure things out, and they have a lot
of pain involved thinking and are well on their way to criminal
thinking.

They KNOW what they are being spanked for,
it's not 'freezing'.. and they associate that pain with the action.

The associate pain with YOU, not with their action. How many times
have you seen a child begin to act out a prior behavior they got
spanked for and look at YOU not the object they are approaching. In
fact note that they start looking at YOU for more and more of their
cues.

It makes parents feel powerful and good to see that in a child and
they are sure they are doing right by punishing, but as time passes
they don't see the speed of learning and improvement in wanted
behaviors that the protecting and supportive teaching parent gets,
easily.


They will merrily ride their tricycle behind the car backing out of
the driveway and be terrified of going toward the street...not
really
knowing why.

Truly stretching there huh Kane?

Not in the least. Do you think that the child that walks or rides
their bike behind a backing car did so because they weren't spanked?
In most major cities you get two or three of those a year, sometimes
more. Are you prepared to argue that if they had been spanked to teach
them to stay away from moving cars they would have not walked behind
them?

And I haven't come up with a fraction of
the basic logic that some of the others in this debate have thrown
towards
you.

The "basic logic" is the kind I'm accustomed to from those that
stopped learning anything new at about 15. We are a nation of arrested
adolescence. You only have to look at our favorite entertainments to
notice it.

Explain your nonsense then... How the hell do you teach a child to
avoid
traffic .. cars backing out of a driveway???

You teach the child to not go into the driveway without you. You do
that by teaching the all the OTHER places to play that are safe. But
you don't really even have to discuss safety. I do so because I am
laying down the memory tracks for later use when they understand
better.

I DON'T count on my teaching to keep them safe. I also close gates. I
do NOT allow 2 year olds out by themselves.

If you are too insensitive to teach them to stay out of the street?
Geez..

I am far more sensitive than you. I noticed when I was a young man
that people spanked their chilren and the children still did dangerous
things and got hurt and killed. I determined to find a better way. I
did.

You appear determined to keep repeating what you learned early in life
over and over again.

Oh yeah, you'll 'talk' to them.

Talking is an adjunctive thing I do to prepare them for later use of
the knowledge. I talk to little children far more than I do to older
ones. Older ones I listen to more, and ask a little question here and
there to encourage them to tap the knowledge they collected from the
supporting protective parent when they were younger.

Sorry dude, your methods only wind up
getting more kids killed than most other methods of child rearing.

Sorry dude, you are wrong. You don't know my methods. You haven't
tried to learn them. They are easy once you commit to them and
actually do them. But I think you'd have a very hard time switching
from warden to coach.


The fact of the matter is, lessons learned without fear and pain
are
far more powerful than those with.

Where's your proof?

I've posted some. You just call them psychobabble.

Most of your studies have been flawed and result only
from your personal observations.

When I see the same thing over and over again, year after year, that I
saw in the studies, I start to think maybe the studies have something
to teach me.

I didn't just stand around. I applied what I learned and I saw results
far more effective than punishment.

And for someone who has done so much
extensive observing of children, one wonders how you had much time
for
anything else.

What an odd thing to say. I didn't say I spent all my time observing
children.

Your credibility is truly lacking here.

Not among those that know what I know. Those that have done
non-punitive parenting are quite aware of the same things I'm
discussing and sharing. They just don't want to be bothered with
trying to educate the uneducable.

They probably think you were spanked, and they know how that cuts off
the desire to learn.


But I still, in either case, would not leave my child
unsupervised...would you?

No one has ever said they should, that's another straw man and you
know it.

No, you are wrong yet again. The argument, and you made it here, is
that the child who is spanked to teach them is far safer than the
child that is taught my way. Between the two, if I wanted to argue
which could be left alone with less risk, which do you think would be
the safer and why?

My child doesn't look to me for control after he has learned safe
behavior. Your's still has to.

The typical mantra of a non spanker, keep your children under lock
and key
24 hours a day from birth til adulthood else you are a bad parent
should you
resort to spanking.

I don't recall saying either. I don't consider people bad or good. I
consider them mistaken though, and you are.

I do not believe in locking children up. I do wonder at those that
can't be bothered to pay attention to their children when in hazardous
circumstances and decide to rely on pain to keep the child safer.

Think you can spank them enough, creatively, to trust them to not
go
into traffic without you?

Aren't you going to call this a strawman? It was a classic and I
confess to it. Mostly because you are beyond rediculous into inanity.



You may not LIKE it, my examining and questioning, but there is
nothing dishonest about it.

If you think so I'm sure you can point out what is dishonest on
my
part by showing us the truth you think I am not showing.

No?

Kane

It's doubtful the use of brain scans can provide much insight as
to
lessons
learned by experience, even painful experience.

Why? The point of the studies is to do just that.

All they can do is measure
the response of the brain to a situation, not the logical
analytical
thought
involved pertaining to one's perceptions of the event.

On dear, one of the poor souls that do not know of the extensive
mapping of the brain going on for years now that identifies exactly
such thing. They know precisely, for instance, where conscience
derives in the brain, down to a small area. It can be tested with
pics
and other testing while the subject is having their brain scanned.

Even the lowest of creatures react to pain, learn to avoid certain
situations once they've experienced a bad consequence of their
actions.

It often takes a number of lessons in animal and human. Even a
flatworm, famous in psych 202 college classes, will try a couple of
more times to get to food and light at the expense of some pain.
Eventually they will learn, but while MY child is learning she may
well get to die from the lesson.

Are
you saying that humans are less than animals in their ability to
deal
with
pain?

Actually there isn't much difference in pain responses.

Our human superiority is that we can, once we pass out of the
animal
linear thinking stage of toddler hood, make reasoned choices based
on
an analysis of the situation with all kinds of variables (as well
learn by experimentation and later by study of other's work).

Animals never get to our ability of abstraction and cause and
effect
reasoning. Some of the apes just skirt it but can be confounded by
things that a grown human would laugh at if we presented them as a
problem.

Of course they don't.. that's why your 'logic' is flawed in believing
that
you can set limits on a child before the age of reason, and expect
them to
follow them without reinforcement, both negative and positive.

How does that differ from your belief that pain will teach them?

And what makes you think I don't use reinforcement? I use a more
elegant and successful form than you do. The description of the little
two year old nephew strongly suggests a child that doesn't trust.

A completely
positive approach does absolutely nothing, just as a completely
negative
approach.

You are babbling. A completely positive approach is impossible. The
child lives in a real world where things will sting, burn, bite,
scratch, and even at my best I'm not going to be able to protect her
from some of those lessions.

My job is to protect her from the truly harmful ones, and I will do
that by observing her age and setting things up so she isn't exposed.
It is also my job to create the highest possible level of trust in me
that I an manage.

I cannot do that with pain. I can with protection and age appropriate
teaching.

You are hung up on only a single aspect on the topic,

I am? How so? Spanking? No, it's not a single topic. I have repeatedly
mentioned punishment, pain and humiliation. So you might assume I am
not limiting myself just to spanking?

Or was that not what you meant? What single aspect then?

and ignore
the rest.

What is "the rest" you refer to?

Which shows your failure to comprehend and apply that
abstraction.

Please clarify.


We know the source and transport of water. Animals cannot figure
that
out.

What does that have to do with this subject Kane?

We were discussing how humans operate. You brought up the animal human
difference. I was resonding.

Animals DO know
instinctively that they must drink the water, they don't have to know
where
it's coming from.

But if the faucet isn't turned on they do not know, usually unless
trained, or they are of higher order, like primates, how to get the
water.

And animals DO learn from painful experience to avoid
certain things, only proving that short term pain can be a learning
experience.

Children learn to avoid certain things when adults are present. It
takes a little time, but eventually they get it. Some of the side
effects are, sneakiness, big people get to hit little people and I'll
be a big people one day.

In other words, some of the founation of later criminal thinking.

Once we reach the age of reason it is easy, quite, to figure out
how
one stays alive by staying out of traffic...I call it "The Flat
Possum
Lesson," though all I could ever find for my kids was a flat Racoon
on
that particular day.

One was old enough for reason, the other old enough to believe his
elder when she reactied to the lesson.

Not true at all. Once a child has been spoiled, it becomes difficult
to
change the pattern of behavior developed very young.

"Spoiled" is one of those throwaway "I learned it at 15 so it is true
for the rest of my life" kind of words. I consider the developmentally
crippled child (from fear of parents) a "spoiled" child.

A child used to
getting his/her way for throwing tantrums is not going to simply
'believe'
his/her elder .. they expect something in return, because this is the
system
you've already established in them.

What makes you assume that the unpunished child is a tantrum thrower
or that other means than spanking can be used to curtail tantrums?

The one thing a tantruming child gets if they are spanked is exactly
what will reinforce more tantrums. They got attention. If they child
isn't in any pain or risk of harm I can patiently just watch a child
tantrum until they are wrung out. It doesn't happen often after that.

You are assuming that people that don't punish run around giving the
child everything they ask for, including attention when it isn't
warranted.

You are wrong. I've seen many a spanker give attention to a child at
exactly the wrong time. I've seen many a nonpunisher simply not give
the child the candy bar, or toy, or even attention, and low and behold
the tantrumming or fussy behavior goes away on its own.

Or the child has something organically malfunctioning and needs that
taken care of.

I assume you know now to research a little, so why not do so next
time
out?

I have researched Kane.. much more than you and it appears much less
believing in psychobabble which has been shown to be nothing more
than
nonesense.

No you haven't. You are running off at the mouth. Common to those that
stopped learning anything new at 15 or so.

So tell me. What research have you done? Observations? Books? Studies?
Teaching spanked children that they are safe now and won't be hit or
hurt again?

I come from a large family, and being the oldest, have 'observed'
many more
issues among young children than you seem to be portraying in your
vast
'experiences'.

I have seen do about everything you can imagine. I've seen toddlers
smear their feces on the wall, poke a cats eye out with a pencil, put
the waterhose in a car's gas tank, light a house on fire, and I've
helped them all get over the punishment parenting that helped produce
such behaviors.


The Embry Street Entry study is just one of those that give us more
than a little hint that thousands of years of thumpin' butt may
just
not have been entirely in the best interests of our race.

Check out Tom Edison....not only not spanked but pulled by his
mother
from school because of the hitting done to him by a teacher. I do
not
think Albert Einstein was spanked. At least the info about him from
his teen years showed a remarkably indulgent family that pulled him
from Gymnasium (HS) were he was failing mathematics, and sent him
off
to Italy to family friends to wander the sunny roads there and have
what later was identified as his epiphany of E=MC2.

All of our children who are spanked and punished, I estimate, has
some
portion, sometimes significant portions, of their development
displaced into survival reactivity.

It's a fascinating study. I hope you'll join in.

The very first thing you need to do though is admit that there
might
be the slightest possibility that the spankers have erred. I don't
think you can even entertain it as speculation, but I tried.

No Kane, your nonsense is complete and utter bull****, and you want
to
believe it so badly, that you tend to put down everyone else.

I am not putting anyone down. I am telling you you are ignorant and
married to it. That's not a putdown. It's a cold observation if you
are telling the truth here.

It is YOU who
want to try to discredit others, simply because you've run out of
logic, and
been shown to be a complete fraud time and time again on this
newsgroup.

Self defensive babble by someone that has lost and knows it and can't
live with it.

You've offered no logic, and you are a fraud if ever I've seen one.


Step two is easier if you have managed step one. Get a book on the
stages of childhood development and project all the behaviors of
children you know into that list.

Kane, guess what? There were NO books on childhood development in
the
earlier stages of our history, and people fared quite well.

I recall some not faring so well. Did you not have history books in
your school?

You want a list
of names to try to 'impress" people with, well, just open a history
book and

I have. Most of the people that are lauded in history books won, and
got to write the history books. Even some of our current heroes have
turned out to be not such nice folks after all.

Im quite sure that you will find that 90 percent or better of our
greatest
leaders had been spanked as children.

So, name a few of our greatest, and I'll see if I can find out if they
were spanked or not.

Understand something before it's too late, or with you, it probably
is.

No, I'm always open to learning. Teach me.

There are NO manuals on being a parent, and anyone who thinks they
can read
bull**** from psychologists who most likely never had children are
kidding
themselves.

I have used books myself and passed them on to people trying to parent
children that were abused. They were relying on what they had learned
as children and it wasn't working. I've had cards, letters,
phonecalls, emails from those people thanking me as now they were more
successful after having read and learned and applied what the books
had to say.

And in the 70's I taught classes to people that were just ordinary
folks that were not satisified with their parenting...they didn't like
what they were seeing in the punishment model, and they too thanked me
for helping them learn to support and protect their children.


In other words, instead of thinking of children in terms of adult
understandings of right and wrong, good and bad, evil, willful,
etc.
try thinking in terms of all behavior, before the age of 6, as
being
driven by nature...forced compulsive exploration of the
environment,
which you are just a part of to the child, once she does that 1.5
to 2
year old definition of self separate from the environment and YOU.

Best of luck..

Kane

LOL.. Kane, you truly amuse me. It is YOU who tend to treat children
as
adults with reasoning power.. I think you've completely lost it
here.

On the contrary. I find those that declare themselves the winners are
usually whistling past the graveyard.

And I do not treat children as having more reasoning power than they
actually do have. I recognize they have different mentation at
different ages. I've said so.

It's you that clearly expect something from children they cannot give,
an understanding of the source of pain being other than yourself when
you hit and hurt them.

And unlike you, I am not driven to LOL. I am not amused by you. I am
worried for humankind now and in the future if you your cohorts should
accidently prevail.

I am heartened to know that efforts to stop the pain, the punishing
parenting, is healthy and growing and succeeding around the plantet
and most especially in our schools. Tom Gordon has sold millions and
millions of copies of PET worldwide and in many languages, and
everywhere people are glad to learn how to grow healthier human
beings.

Thanks for the post.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:43:44 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:28:02 -0500, Jon Houts

wrote:


On 11 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Ray Drouillard wrote:

Interesting. All of the prisoners that
he interviewed were spanked as children.

Again, were they 'spanked' or were they beaten?

I believe the researcher, one Fischer out of UOC school of social work
many years ago, was simply looking for spanked.

Your problem is to determine what is spanking and what is beating and
this has been an area of considerable weakness in the claims made by
pro spankers and apologists.

No, the inability to distinguish between the two has been the weakness of
the anti spankers as they, like you refuse to accept that there IS quite a
difference.



What you might never accept as "spanking" might be so to someone else.
I know I have frequently seen those on the pro side describe a
thoroughgoing whipping as "a spanking and well deserved" even when
they are the victim themselves.

Caning was a prevalent practice in earlier centuries and still used in some
countries, but the majority of parents would never consider that, and to use
or ignore the vast differences is being intellectually dishonest on your
part.


It is an area fraught with obstacles.

I go around the issue, much to the consternation for some, by stating
that deliberate punishment of a child is counterproductive to their
learning and their mental health.

You have not shown that in any of your statements. By attempting to do so,
you insult the human intelligence, even at a very young age.

If one were to follow your logic, you can use 'reason' and set 'limits' for
a child who, by your own definitions does not even have the basic instictive
facilities of Pavlov's dog. You are being quite elusive in your tactics and
quite inconsistent.


Learning can be learning to do something, and that can include
learning to do the required developmental work to excell and not be
dysfunctional.

A child spending too much time trying to mind is NOT learning about
things like gravity, light, sound, and other physical phenomena, and
they are sometimes leaving critical areas of the brain undeveloped
through lack of exercise.

Again, total and complete bull**** Kane. HOW, do you teach a child things
such as gravity, light, sound and other physical phenomena, when in your own
words, their minds are not developed enough until the magical age of 6?

You continue to throw out straw men, showing that you are having problems
with some of the 'weak, inconsentency' of us 'apologists'..


I can make a warrior and factory worker by using punishment methods,
but I'd be hard pressed to make a scholar, inventor, or other
intellectual exceller.

Again Kane, more nonsense. I have followed this thread from the beginning,
and NO single person has stated that physical punishment can be used for
intellectual purposes. It seems that only you have that hang up, and it's a
very weak argument considering the reasons many have given supporting
spanking as a method of reinforcing acceptable beahvior.
..


One could do a study of
most of the greats of our society throughtout the past century or so
and
find a large number of them had also been spanked as very young
children.

No one couldn't. The greater the chances of greatness the greater the
chances they were spanked less or not at all, and punishment wasn't
much of a factor in most of their lives. I have worked with
maladjusted children who were punished well who had everything wrong
going on with them from socially malajusted to poor problem solving,
to severe thinking errors, to being murderous homocidal maniacs.

Where are your studies on this Kane? You cannot disprove a simple fact that
spanking, caning, and even beating has been a well accepted principle
throughout the history of the world as a whole. To deny that is to bury
one's head in the sand and say ONLY the great leaders were not spanked, when
that is a present day condition, only pounced upon by psychologists and
doomsayers as to the evils of corporal punishment.

They don't come from being NOT punished.

What does that study show?

Well, since you said yourself that one "could" do such a study why
don't you find one?

I'll save you the trouble. None has been done to my knowledge. There
is speculation only.

No Kane.. I can do MY observations, which seems to be the only thing you
have going for you. MY observations has shown that the lack of discipline
at early ages (ie 'talking' to a child without reinforcement) leads to young
adults who are not ready for life in the real world. They are used to
bribing and whining and getting their way without consequences. Hardly
helping the child in the long run.

I can offer you my observations in the hope that you too will look
above your current knowledge and consider some other possibilities.
After all, what harm would it do? You could always return, better
armed perhaps, to defend spanking and punishment parenting.

Have a good one,

Kane

I think it has been defended quite well Kane, considering you continue to
throw out straw men, and sidestep the issues.

I certainly have not attempted to try to 'impress' others with an
intellectual approach or outright stretches of the imagination through your
own delusions, but simply stated the facts as seen through my own
observations. It took quite a long while before you finally admitted you
are quite the b/ser and are only misreading flawed reports and using your
own observations to base your opinions on.

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:

Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
and
humiliation in parenting.

One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
Kane wrote:
Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
very
soon in this reply of yours.

No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it? You keep talking about your own long history of
observation and treatment of abused children, funny, I never thought that
was the duty of an Air Force professional. I think you make things up as
you go along.

Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.

It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
information that is relevant.

Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive. They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

Talking in circles and contradicting oneself is not 'posting and resuing
data and information that is relevant', it's stretching to prove to yourself
that you are right, no matter what others might think.


Kane wrote:
Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
given
by that child when she grows up?

I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
stretching
a bit aren't you?

I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.

Wrong, I've followed the thread from the beginning and nowhere can I find
anywhere that anyone has made such a claim. Your saying it here doesn't
make it so, it is only your interpretation, which has been stretched quite a
bit as it is, such as your continuing statements that you cannot 'teach'
mathematics or writing through pain, which again, no one has claimed..


My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.

People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking, or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
young age actually do 'escalate' the pain..


Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
can be
painful.

I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
Children get plenty of that, from the very first.

They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
according to how the mother presents to them.

It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
behavior.

I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
as they grow older.


And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
behavior" something of a puzzle.

I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do. By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
consequences.

And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?

It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
painful.

She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
man. She was a Thorougbred.

It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
make easily.

She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.

I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.

And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
all.

The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
was so bad I couldn't work with her.

He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.

I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.

All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?

And now let's put that same comparison to use in the REAL world of humans.
It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric. When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.


We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche.. but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums. While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.


Do you honestly believe that the Columbine kids were the only children in
history who were outcast by their classmates, or that the violence in school
is a result of 'spanking' by parents 50 or 60 years ago, when conditions
were much better.

You still don't get it do you. You are completely blinded to reality by
living in a world of 'studies' and 'observations' of such limited structure
that you don't realize the damage you and those who think like you have
truly done.

I do not argue passionately for spanking, only to combat the nonsense spoon
fed us by those 'professionals', many of whom have never had children, which
has led us down the path of ruin, and damaged the emotional health of
children forever.

As an Air Force professional, you certainly appear to know little or nothing
about the importance of discipline, or how badly your logic has degraded it
in the real world, not only in the armed forces.

Continue to make your wild claims and believe that you are doing good. Most
parents realize that people like you are the reasons for many of today's
problems and deal with their children on a one to one basis depending upon
their needs.

For one, I will let you wallow in your self righeousness and drop from this
discussion. You have shown yourself to be completely closed minded.. as you
have tried to portray myself and others who have debated you.

However, IF you truly have been a lurker here, you will note that I have on
several occassions reversed my opinion when presented with honest fact and
reasoning for how others believe or perceive things. But I will not buy
into talking in circles and contradictions, something which is more harmful
to society than taking charge of the upbringing of ones children to be well
rounded and emotionally stable in dealing with the world around us.

Dennis Hancock wrote:

Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
psychological abuse.

In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punmishment for
any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is considered
physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive. For
some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt from this
protection.

What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little children to be
victimized by the exact same behavior that is considered physically,
emotionally, and psychologically abusive once that little child turns 18.

This is weird logic, Dennis.

LaVonne

"Dennis Hancock" wrote in message
news:W8anb.40826$Tr4.84191@attbi_s03...
"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:41:06 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:

Thank you for interspercing your comments in proximity to my post. It
makes for much more readible and interesting posts to my mind.


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:42:01 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
It isn't dishonest of me to consider the link between abuse and
spanking nor is it dishonest of me to consider the state of the
world
and its societies as possibly being linked to the use of pain
and
humiliation in parenting.

One can find a 'link' to just about everything,
Kane wrote:
Yes, one can. I've noticed the spankers do, just as you will do
very
soon in this reply of yours.

No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it?

Really? Please show me where my knowledge has proven faulty.

So far as I've seen the only challenges I've had were opinions. No response to
the body of knowledge.

You keep talking about your own long history of
observation and treatment of abused children, funny, I never thought that
was the duty of an Air Force professional.

It wasn't. I didn't work with children during my tour of duty. What makes you
think I made a profession out of it? I never made that claim. You seem to be
taking things I say out of context and assigning whatever meanings you fancy.

I think you make things up as
you go along.

No, but you obviously are doing so about me.


Amusing that you now can predict what others will say.

It's no mystery or special claim. There is a long history of responses
to the spanking issue by spankers in these negs. I daresay you could
have made the same claim about me. I tend to repost or reuse data and
information that is relevant.

Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive.

Really? With citation after citation of studies for many years, anecdotal
materials, their own observations. The only nonsense here is your ignorance.

You seem to know what you know and that is the end of the matter. You don't
debate anything, just make declarations. I've posted half a dozen citations or
so to various research sources.

What you have you posted to support your position except nonsense parrotted
for years by the ignorant?

They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

A classic projection. If anyone is bothering to study the issue it is the
proponent of non-cp parenting methods. While you diddlywads keep relying on
history and "we always did it that way and we turn out okay...hyuk hyuk."

Talking in circles and contradicting oneself is not 'posting and resuing
data and information that is relevant', it's stretching to prove to yourself
that you are right, no matter what others might think.

Then you should spend so much of your posting doing that. Show me where I've
contradicted myself. I'll be happy to show you were you have, repeatedly.

Kane wrote:
Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
given
by that child when she grows up?

I haven't seen a single person make that claim here, your kind of
stretching
a bit aren't you?

I have seen numerous persons make such a claim. You just fail to
recognize it. Many times the unwanted behavior a parent spanks for is
hitting and biting between children or hitting the adult.

Wrong, I've followed the thread from the beginning and nowhere can I find
anywhere that anyone has made such a claim.

You are not answering the question. That's a ploy as ancient as Mathusalah.
The question was,

Do you believe that pain received in childhood reduces the pain
given
by that child when she grows up?

I am not making a claim. I am asking a question.

And in fact that claim by you folks is implied in your aversive parenting. You
do hit your child and I presume you would do so for hitting other children. Am
I incorrect, or are you going to try and weasel out of answer THIS question as
well?

Your saying it here doesn't
make it so, it is only your interpretation, which has been stretched quite a
bit as it is, such as your continuing statements that you cannot 'teach'
mathematics or writing through pain, which again, no one has claimed..

I wasn't saying that other's made the claim. I was answering the claim made by
others that pain is a good means of teaching.

You fail on two counts.


My question though wasn't really that narrow in scope. I am, of
course, referring to the fact that many who were spanked do so to
their children, and tend, all too often, as was recently posted to
this ng, escalate to more pain by way of spanking.

People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves.

You are correct. Please define the dividing line between spanking and abuse.
We have lots of time so don't rush yourself.
And while you are at it please include how one tells which child will
experience abuse rather than "spanking discipline" at what point in the
abuse-spanking continuium.

It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking,

No, I DO differentiate. It's you and your cohort that fail to do that. I
consider any action that falls short of supporting the child learning and
being protected as abusive.

The pain of CP is NOT conducive to learning anything. If a child is about to
do an action or is doing an action I do not want them to it is my
responsibility to protect them first from any dangerous consequences, then it
is my responsibility to teach them at the level of development they are in at
the moment. If they are just crawling I'm not going to do much but physically
remove them from the site of the action and distract them.

If they are toddlers I am going to likely do both remove them and I am going
to divert to instruction as often as possible, most especially if they are
about to do something dangerous to themselves and others.

or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
young age actually do 'escalate' the pain..

I have provided citations. These ngs are full of such citations. Google will
take you to citations. In other words you are shuckin' and jivin' like crazy
here.

But let's give you something to do besides babble..

Children whose parents use corporal punishment to control antisocial behavior
show more antisocial behavior themselves over a long period of time,
regardless of race and socioeconomic status, and regardless of whether the
mother provides cognitive stimulation and emotional support (Gunnoe & Mariner,
1997; Kazdin, 1987; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Straus, Sugarman, &
Giles-Sims, 1997).

A consistent pattern of physical abuse exists that generally starts as
corporal punishment, and then gets out of control (Kadushin & Martin, 1981;
Straus & Yodanis, 1994).

Adults who were hit as children are more likely to be depressed or violent
themselves (Berkowitz, 1993; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Straus,
1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992).

The more a child is hit, the more likely it is that the child, when an adult,
will hit his or her children, spouse, or friends (Julian & McKenry, 1993;
Straus, 1991; Straus, 1994; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Straus & Kantor, 1992;
Widom, 1989; Wolfe, 1987).

Corporal punishment increases the probability of children assaulting the
parent in retaliation, especially as they grow older (Brezina, 1998).

Corporal punishment sends a message to the child that violence is a viable
option for solving problems (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus,
Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).

Corporal punishment is degrading, contributes to feelings of helplessness and
humiliation, robs a child of self-worth and self-respect, and can lead to
withdrawal or aggression (Sternberg et al., 1993; Straus, 1994).

Corporal punishment erodes trust between a parent and a child, and increases
the risk of child abuse; as a discipline measure, it simply does not decrease
children's aggressive or delinquent behaviors (Straus, 1994).

Children who get spanked regularly are more likely over time to cheat or lie,
be disobedient at school, bully others, and show less remorse for wrongdoing
(Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997).

Corporal punishment adversely affects children's cognitive development.
Children who are spanked perform poorly on school tasks compared to other
children (Straus & Mathur, 1995; Straus & Paschall, 1998).

and when you are finished with your critique of these studies you can start on
(never ask me for proof little boy):

http://hugse9.harvard.edu/gsedata/Re...vperson_id=335 will
give you a start with one of the more preeminant researchers in the brain-mind
cognitive learning area. His book with Dawson is worth the money. (Human
Behavior and the Developing Brain (with G. Dawson) (1994) )

I really have to thank you for taking this discussion between us to the level
you have. I thought you'd never get around to it.

It gives me a wonderful excuse to provide even MORE data and methods for child
rearing without pain.

Any interested folks looking for non-punitive and non-pain parenting methods
and support for same couldn't go wrong looking at this source:

http://www.cpirc.org/tips/braindev.htm

Quite a bibliography.

And also:

http://childparenting.miningco.com/l...ub2.htm?iam=mt

and;

http://childparenting.miningco.com/l...y/aa011599.htm



Pain received in childhood teaches a child at the
simplest most basic level to avoid certain situations BECAUSE they
can be
painful.

I agree. Natural consequences are extremely educational, but cause the
object of the pain is the object or action the child touchers or does.
Children get plenty of that, from the very first.

They watch and study with great intensity even the expression and the
body language of their primary parent, usually their mother. Mother's
who are observant notice very subtle responses from their child
according to how the mother presents to them.

It doesn't 'reduce' adulthood pain, it reinforces against stupid
behavior.

I agree. I doesn't reduce adutlhood pain. I would argue that it does
increase the likelihood of the pain parented child to find MORE pain
in adulthood. Some of it psychological and some behavioral.

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

Where does that inference come in?

You don't believe then that we are a product of our experiences?

My observations have been that the non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
as they grow older.

Do you mean "non-spanked" completely or the sometimes spanked and randomly
spanked? I have seen such behavior commonly in that population. The completely
nonspanked child is usually skilled at negotiating, and fairly at that.

It's a common part of the life-skills set of non-punitive raised children.


And your second point: "it reinforces against stupid
behavior" something of a puzzle.

I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do. By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions.

That is inevitable with or without a pain parenting adult present. It isn't
like a child is placed in cottonwool by non pain parenting children. I think
that such children actually have a higher incidence of interacting with the
enviroment consequencially....their parents tend NOT to do a lot of stopping
of behaviors with threats of pain or pain and let the child have the
experience as long as it isn't painful. I see a lot of spanking for behaviors
that are simply annoying to the parent or "because I said so."

Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
consequences.

Well, it is impossible to do that. The real world delivers more than enough
consequences to the child doing her ordinary exploring. And "many of your
thinking" are quite comfortable with natural consequences being educational
for a child.

Many of YOUR thinking seem to miss that and assume things about nonCP using
families that simply aren't true. It appears to be no more than a defensive
reaction of folks of YOUR thinking rather than a well thought out rebuttal.

And incident that comes readily to mind was a young polo mare trucked
in for training at a large stable I managed. I'd say she was probably
a 3 year old. Had been range bred and belonged originally to one of
the Rockerfellers. I watched the "trainer" work with her. He was a
quick hand with the polo whip. Ever see one?

It's about three feet long, leather covered with a nylon core, very
springy and stiff. If you took the leather off you could cut a horse
with it...and even with leather it leaves a terrible welt. Very
painful.

She managed to survive all his "training" pretty well...after all
horses if well bred tend to have temperments to cope with and tolerate
man. She was a Thorougbred.

It came time to ship her out to the new owner for her introduction to
the game in scrimmages and practices. The "trainer" was putting her in
the truck, up a short ramp at a kind of steep angle, but one she could
make easily.

She fought going into the truck, a flatbed with high stake sides. He
would get her to the ramp (he was mounted on her) and she would balk
just at the first step, the touch of the wooden ramp. He'd whip her,
hard with that polo whip, and she would immediately start running
backward pretty fast away from the ramp...a very dangerous thing for a
horse to do, what with bystanders, etc.

I was known for teaching horses to trailer and truck very quickly,
usually in 10 or 15 minutes with the lead rope just thrown over their
back. I have a very light touch with animals and children. I just kind
of walk them where they need to be and oddly my gentle approach seems
to work every time...with abused horses or abused children.

And they shortly walk alone where I want them to go, no lead rope at
all.

The "trainer" thought he had one even I couldn't train...and though he
had watched me do it many times...he took a chance this little mare
was so bad I couldn't work with her.

He didn't know that he had trained her for me of course.

I took his whip, mounted up, rode the mare to the ramp, she balked, I
reined her in a quick spin so she was facing away from the truck and
just touched her rump with the polo whip...not hitting.....where he
had been whipping her, and she of course did as trained...she ran
backwards....right up into the truck. I dismounted, tossed him his
whip, pulled off the saddle and bridle and walked down the ramp.

All one has to do to NOT use pain is the think. Is that so very hard?

And now let's put that same comparison to use in the REAL world of humans.
It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

You failed again. There isn't that much lack of spanking. And areas that have
reduced spanking are enjoying an improvement in child behaviors of all kinds.
Schools change from spanking to non-spanking are a good example.

And yes, I think child rearing methods MUST be considered when one judges a
society's moral models. And were spanking is more prevalent there is more
violence all and all. Check into child rearing methods in some of the worlds
most violent societies.

If they aren't physically punishing they have a sophisticated psychologically
abusive parenting method.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric. When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

It is currently the safest place for children. The rate of injuries is higher
in families than in schools. I went to those paddling schools of old and I can
tell you that crime and deliquency were common. And I wasn't an inner city kid
either...but that is yet another point to ponder.

The only reason it wasn't noted as much at the time as prosecution of juvenile
crime was much less than today. I did things myself that would and should have
had law enforcement on my tail. Things we laughed but that could and sometimes
did escalate into serious offenses and injury to others. I saw a lot of
behavior that strongly suggested kids acting out as they had been taught to
act out by punishing parents.

Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious.

Only a fool could refuse to look outside their own immediate experience, and
also miss the truth in that experience. I can't guess where you went to school
that was so nicey nice, but I went to both urban rural schools and I saw
plenty of juvenile crime. And plenty of paddling didn't reduce it one bit.

That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution.

Baloney. Check out juvenile crime stats. They are low and have remained low
for the last few years. DOJ has a nice page for you to study. Even teen
pregnancies are down.

There are no consequences.

Really?

I see kids having consequences all the time. You are really saying they aren't
in pain, aren't you....and you are still wrong.

Try your approach with teenagers and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not.

The kids that have been brought up by brute parenting methods with lots of
pain sure will. Teens brought up with support and teaching...true
teaching...don't do any such thing. I confront teens all the time just because
I like to talk with them and see what's up. My favorite is to get on public
transport for a ride...not really going anywhere sometimes, and look for the
punkiest looking kids possible and chat them up.

I find they aren't a bit like the media image they are dressed like. We
dressed unlike our parents when I was a kid too and our parents made all kinds
of assumptions about us that weren't really true of the majority. Same old
stuff is going on.

You ever run across that public notice put out in ancient Greece or Rome about
how the young were running rampant etc etc. You would have thought is was a
current day rant until you got to the bottom of the text and saw the date and
location.

For why not, all it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.

When I worked with emotionally disturbed youth we kept them in public school
easily. If they got in trouble and were sent home to the residential facility
we had a nice little "schoolroom" set up in the dining room. It wasn't
punishing in any way...just a continuation of the school they were missing.

I taught the local junior high folks how to do away with suspensions and such
and put in a working program that actually taught kids. It was so popular that
I got called by the elementary school to work with their teachers in special
ed to do something similar. Hey, we taught each other...and the most difficult
kids were easily dealt with effectively without any punishment at all...but
there were "consequences."

We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche..

We have? I've never listened to it. I tell kids negative things all the time
as a consequence of their unwanted behavior. It's not rocket science. I do it
in such a way that they aren't punished by my statements and they are invited
to problem solve with me to fix the situation. They respond really well, and
learn, when they aren't humiliated and upset and reactive emotionally. Funny
how that works.

but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.

Can't say who you are hanging around with but that is not the least like my
experience. I see children that are punished liberally through childhood that
are emotional cripples. I see children with strong psychological foundations
from being parented with love, gentleness and support...with out deliberate
pain applied by their parents.

While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise.

Why would you continue to assume, considering I've told you better a number of
times, that parents who do not punish fail to allow their children to
experience negatives? Negatives do not have to be delivered by
parents....though it actually is more healthy to do so on the interpersonal
issues...like if my child curses at me (never had it happen) I'm certainly not
going to run over and give them a hug. I'm going to tell them it hurt with my
voice and my facial expression and my body language. Congruence is most
important and insures that my child experiences a wide range of
effects..consequences...for their behaviors.

Those who are denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.

I doubt that you can find any child that is denied the experience of negatives
in their lives. I do see children with many temperments where some handle the
negatives well, and some do not..but spanking or not does not change those
differences in constitution of the child. In fact for the child that doesn't
handle negatives very well it's pretty much assured they will do a poorer job
if they are pain parented.

Do you honestly believe that the Columbine kids were the only children in
history who were outcast by their classmates,

I didn't mention they were outcast. I don't actually consider that the base or
primary cause of their going off like they did. There could be many factors,
and I suspect they were adequately pain parented. Given the prevalence of pain
parenting in our society I'd say the odds were heavy that they were, and
unlikely they were parented as I've suggested here.

If you have anything other than idle speculation about their parenting
experience you'll post it for us I presume.

or that the violence in school
is a result of 'spanking' by parents 50 or 60 years ago, when conditions
were much better.

That is a dream. A careful assessment of old news media will show you that
there were problems back then too. And considering the old men that were
raised then and are now in power I don't think I'd be stretching much to
suggest the we look closely at the possiblilty of some spanking causal factors
in the violence in the world today...including that which we, as Americans,
perpetrate.

You still don't get it do you.

Sure I do. I get it that you are starting to babble and your arguments are
empty. Nothing new in that.

You are completely blinded to reality by
living in a world of 'studies' and 'observations' of such limited structure
that you don't realize the damage you and those who think like you have
truly done.

On the contrary.

If you are one of those that have decided that academic research isn't going
to effect your opinion, then you belong to a large crowd of losers. Enjoy.

I do not argue passionately for spanking,

Sure you do. You are doing so now. And most of your argument is emotion based,
as in "passionate."

only to combat the nonsense spoon
fed us by those 'professionals',

Do you have a witch doctor look after your health needs? Or so you prefer
someone with opinions about health? Personally I like, when I have a health
concern, to ask a trained professional to attend me.

many of whom have never had children,

What an odd claim. Who do you know that gives professional advice, does child
development research, or in other ways are professionally involved that do not
have children?

And how does not having children disqualify them? I let a doctor set my broken
leg back in 1966 who had never had so much as a broken bone himself. Many
people routinely send their children off to school to be taught by unmarried
people and people without children of their own.

I tend ot look at quality and credentials in results produced. Do you think
Catholics should not take advice about their marriage and child rearing
because they haven't experienced those things?

which
has led us down the path of ruin, and damaged the emotional health of
children forever.

No, you certainly "do not argue passionately for spanking."

As an Air Force professional, you certainly appear to know little or nothing
about the importance of discipline,

On the contrary. I know the importance of not only knowing how to follow
orders, but more, how to command one's self. When I taught E&E I taught that
very skill. Self discipline under extremely trying conditions.

or how badly your logic has degraded it
in the real world, not only in the armed forces.

I wonder how I managed to raise two, and my wife her two by the same methods,
children that were and are very successful and very much self determined and
honest. They should be in jail according to you.

I also wonder how I managed to turn around the hundreds of teens I worked with
and help them become responsible citizens without punishing them?

Continue to make your wild claims and believe that you are doing good.

Given the state of the world and the preponderance of folks like you raising
children I'd have to say you are the one making the wild claims. But that's
nothing new for spanking afficianados. They have been doing it for a very long
time. And things haven't gotten better. Well, except where spanking is being
curtailed.

Most
parents realize that people like you are the reasons for many of today's
problems

Ah, the "people like you" claim. People like you make people like you claims
all the time and cannot back it up in any fashion except in their dreams. I've
had to pull far too many children out of the misery created by pain parenting
not to be acutely aware of the "people like you" claims.

and deal with their children on a one to one basis depending upon
their needs.

You seem to be suggesting that I am the one with a one trick solution to
parenting, when in fact it's the punishing parents that so often have few if
any skills beyond pain or the threat of pain.

For one, I will let you wallow in your self righeousness and drop from this
discussion.

Crawfish.

You have shown yourself to be completely closed minded.. as you
have tried to portray myself and others who have debated you.

You aren't closed minded then? You are willing to entertain the idea that
children might need the kind of parenting I describe?

I used to believe your kind of parenting was the right kind. I was so "closed
minded" I changed my mind based on evidence and observation. Let's see you try
my way for awhile.

However, IF you truly have been a lurker here, you will note that I have on
several occassions reversed my opinion when presented with honest fact and
reasoning for how others believe or perceive things.

I must have missed that. I don't follow your posting career. Are you
suggesting that if I could just present you with "honest fact and reasoning
for how others believe or perceive things" you'd be open to changing your
mind?

I find the difficult to believe. I think you have more than a small interest
in maintaining your particular reality and wouldn't give it up no matter how
much data or honest fact and reasoning I might present.

But I will not buy
into talking in circles and contradictions,

Then why do you do so very much of it instead of offering something cogent?

I've asked you to point out those times I've done either when you've made that
claim before. You haven't responded except to repeat the claim. That isn't
very good for your credibility. And it talking in circles and contradictions.

something which is more harmful
to society than taking charge of the upbringing of ones children to be well
rounded and emotionally stable in dealing with the world around us.

Odd, all the children I've worked with and raised are extremely well rounded.

And please explain how pain parenting is determined to accomplish that well
rounding and emotional stablility...given the state of the world and the
behaviors of adults who were pain parented as children.

Kane

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:


Dennis Hancock wrote:

Again Kane, you are showing your lack of ability to discuss this issue. One
cannot ignore the fine lines between spanking and abusive behavior in
dealing with this issue than they can in refusing to deal with emotional or
psychological abuse.

In the US, corporal punishment is considered cruel and unusual punmishment for
any individual over the age of 18. Why? Corporal punishment is considered
physically abusive, emotionally abusive, and psychololgically abusive. For
some strange and bizarre reason, anyone under the age of 18 is exempt from this
protection.

LOL! Are you saying that cp is allowed in the juvenile justice system????

What does this mean, Dennis? It means that the US allows little
children to be victimized by the exact same behavior that is
considered physically, emotionally, and psychologically abusive once
that little child turns 18.

So spanking is the same as being flogged as a criminal???

This is weird logic, Dennis.

Yup! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive???
:-)

Doan

Dennis Hancock wrote:

"Kane" wrote in message

No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it?

I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it again?

Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive.

Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care to
back up your words?

They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's people
who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of
children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment,
humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again, anything to
back up what you insist upon believing?

People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking,

Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation to the
next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated
multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow propogates
itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that way?

or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a very
young age

What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time and
loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and catering to
their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy motivating
them to exhibit bad behavior?

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite problematic
as they grow older.

Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their own needs and
interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered authoritative
adult's?"

I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when they see people
(kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who find it
problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of covering
them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't express his real
feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other children do
express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].

I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.

Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds are still
developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who are ~3 and
younger?

By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all the
consequences.

Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an adult's needs?
You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than allowing natural
consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other than that
larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way over the
smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore butt for
complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame Street (so that
the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in time to make
her bridge game).

some snippage

It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.

Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the point where the
majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way - barbaric?

When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been banned.

What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked at home) is in
an average public school?

Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are unaffected by
the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.

Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all that will fix
the problems the child brings from home, or should be again replaced with cp?

Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no discipline.

And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a non-spank,
non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their attitudes and values
were being firmly established?

We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche.

What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?

but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.

I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to the best of
my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked in early
childhood.

Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not to others?

While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.

Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of substantiation?

-Jerry-

"Gerald Alborn" wrote in message
...
Dennis Hancock wrote:

"Kane" wrote in message

No Kane, it's apparent that only YOU see direct links which do not
exist.

No, I am not the only person to see such links. Those doing research
in brain scans and behavioral observation research are my sources. As
well as my own long history of observation and treatment of abused
children.

Your knowledge of brain scans has already been proven faulty and you
continue with it?

I must have missed what you thought was proof, Dennis. Care to post it
again?


*I* didn't -post it Gerald, someone else did and Kane effectively backed
down on his claims. Just as his 'wealth' of experience eventually boiled
down to his reading of parenting books and personal observations upon
further questioning by myself and others.



Just as there is a long history of nonsense from people who claim that
spanking is abusive.

Again you're making assertions for which I've seen no proof offered. Care
to
back up your words?

Can you even read? Kane has said all along that he considers spanking as
abusive, in fact at one point, called one 'cruel' for punishing a toddler
who could not comprehend right from wrong.


They are too caught up in their own self righeousness
that they cannot comprehend the damage that they are creating.

Damage, caused by people who advocate against hurting children? So it's
people
who strongly advocate and practice only kind and respectful treatment of
children and NOT those who think nothing of dishing out pain, punishment,
humiliation and disrespect, who are the ones causing damage? Again,
anything to
back up what you insist upon believing?

Take a good hard long look at the public school system, the complete
breakdown in discipline and you can see EXACTLY what damage has been done.

The fact that people like yourself and Kane equate any and all punishment
which may involve some sort of humiliation or pain as 'cruel and unusual'
punishment has led to an utter breakdown of discipline throughout society.

I suppose you, like Kane are going to make the stretch that after centuries
of acceptable spanking, even at the extremes in the past, that THAT is now
responsible for the condition of society today, even considering the fact
that non-spanking has gained a lot of following over the past thirty or
forty years, and the psychobabble that anyone who decides their child may
need some discipline is somehow abusive has attempted to put a stigma on
even the mildest of discipline?


People who were physically abused generally resort to physical abuse
themselves. It's a never ending cycle, yet you still refuse to
differentiate between abuse and spanking,

Did you ever wonder how or why spanking is propogated from one generation
to the
next in spanking families, just as severe physical abuse is propogated
multigenerationally in other families? Do you think spanking somehow
propogates
itself because it's such a good idea, rather than because abuse works that
way?

Yawn.. again, you try to confuse spanking with abuse. Then please explain
how, with the disappearance of corporal punishment in the public schools,
that any and all respect and discipline has vanished along with it.

Yes, everyone knows that abuse propogates from generation to generation, but
any parent worth their salt also knows how their own children react to
outside stimuli. Some children never need to suffer a spanking while others
may well need a physical reinforcement. But of course, to you and Kane, you
can use 'reason' and set guidelines which have absolutely no consequences
for the child.


or show proof that those who spank
for disciplinary reasons or teaching their child correct behavior at a
very
young age

What's wrong with modelling correct behavior, giving an abundance of time
and
loving attention to young children, treating them respectfully, and
catering to
their genuine needs so that they have no pent-up emotional energy
motivating
them to exhibit bad behavior?

WHO said it was wrong? You want to pick apart every statement and try to
put words into my mouth?

In other words the spanked child tends to have reactions that interfer
with them getting what they need and want without a lot of pain
involved. Sometimes for themselves and sometimes for others.

Where does that inference come in? My observations have been that the
non
spanked child has very little awareness of the consequences of his/her
actions and becomes quite manipulative, and that becomes quite
problematic
as they grow older.

Instead of manipulative, don't you really mean "going after their own
needs and
interests instead of caving to the needs of the self-centered
authoritative
adult's?"

NOPE.. not at all. Bull**** plain and simple. If you do not understand
that children learn, at a very young age to manipulate their parents to get
what they want, then I pity your child. It's not always the needs of a
self centered authoritive adult, it's called PROTECTING a child and teaching
them right from wrong. IF spanking on a limited basis achieves this, then
so be it, but you are trying the exact same nonsense that Kane is and it
isn't working. You cannot differentiate between abuse and discipline, and
therefore are just as intellectually dishonest as he is by attempting to put
down any and all efforts by parents to maintain what they feel is best for
their own child.


I've noticed that it's often problematic to neurotic adults when they see
people
(kids and adults) who don't share in their neurosis. Like those who find
it
problematic when kids openly express their real feelings instead of
covering
them up, for the benefit of the neurotic adult [who couldn't express his
real
feelings as a child and, hence, now can't stand it when other children do
express their feelings (displeasure, etc.) appropriately].

Oh, so now anyone who disagree's with your position is neurotic? LOL.
Quite a stretch. No, I followed this thread for a long time before I
stepped in, watching Kane attempt to impress others with questionable
credentials and contradict himself time and time again in order to somehow
put himself on moral high ground.

To attempt to portray any and all spanking as abuse is simply not being
honest and to attempt to being condescending as Kane has tried to be does
indeed cause one to respond in kind.


I've done a great deal of animal training, and some of my most
interesting work was undoing the bad training of others. I did a great
deal of it.

Animals do not have the reasoning ability that humans do.

Does this mean you don't believe in spanking children whose minds are
still
developing and are too young to reason very well - like those who are ~3
and
younger?

Since all the above quotes were by Kane, why don't you ask him that
question. If you've followed the thread closely, you'll note that he even
allowed his young daughter to be in direct danger (didn't supervise her
close enough) and did nothing but talk to her afterwards.

I think this makes my point that his continual 'close supervision'
statements which attempt to portray any parent whose child receives any kind
of pain (such as touching something hot) is somehow negligent is quite
incorrect on his part.


By 'stupid'
behavior, in the very young, it's behavior that causes pain to them.
EXACTLY as many animals react by avoiding that situation. As a child
grows
older, he learns that there are consequences to his actions. Something
many of your thinking cannot comprehend because you have taken away all
the
consequences.

Are you speaking of consequences for not gracefully caving to an adult's
needs?

What adult's needs? You act as if you personally have been the victim of a
brutal adult. MOST adult's don't have a 'need' to punish their child, but
anyone who cannot understand setting limits and teaching the child there are
consequences for exceeding those limits is fooling themselves. I have yet
to see ANY child who does not test the limits. It's called being a parent
and teaching your child right from wrong.

You seem to be speaking of imposing consequences rather than allowing
natural
consequences to occur. What do imposed consequences teach, other than that
larger, stronger and more powerful beings get to have their way over the
smaller, weaker and less powerful? Like the toddler who gets a sore butt
for
complaining that he has to miss out on the last half of Sesame Street (so
that
the mother could bend him to her needs and get him to the sitter in time
to make
her bridge game).

Or the child who is so used to getting their way that they dart out into a
busy street, or the natural consequences of letting them go ahead and put
their finger in a light socket and see if it hurts them?

Get real... the world is fraught with dangers, and to attempt to make it
somehow an adult's 'need' to punish for the hell of it is ignoring the issue
and attempting to do the same thing that Kane is doing. IF you let your
child follow 'natural consequences' then you most assuredly are negligent in
your duties as a parent in teaching them to avoid many things which are
harmful.


some snippage

It has only been in recent history where 'spanking' or any type of
corporal
punsihment has been looked down upon. YOU want to blame the condition
of
society upon the 'spankers' of the past, but if you take note, we've
actually come to the point where the lack of spanking has been much more
prevalent over the past 30 years or so than at any time in past history.

In ancient times, whipping, and caning were quite prevalent.. Now, for
the
most part in most societies, they are considered barbaric.

Haven't you ever wondered why humankind hasn't yet gotten to the point
where the
majority sees the painful treatment of children the same way - barbaric?

Nope, not at all. I am quite willing to distinguish the difference between
'spanking' as a teaching method and later as a disciplinary tool, and
outright abuse.

OF COURSE 'painful' treatment of children is barbaric, but for the most
part, a reasonable parent's disciplinary action of swatting a child's butt
usually results more in a mild reinforcement than outright pain. Again,
keep on trying to use the words to portray any and all spanking as abuse and
you continue to ignore the real issues.

When I went to
public schools, one would expect to be punished by a swat with a wooden
paddle on the rear end if you misbehaved. Take a good hard long look at
the
condition of the public schools since corporal punishment has been
banned.

What do you think the percentage of non-spanked kids (non-spanked at home)
is in
an average public school?

Doesn't matter what the percentage is. The plain fact is they can tell you
to go to hell, and there are no consequences at school. You have reinforced
a complete breakdown in discipline, and it shows.


Do you think school kids who enjoy freedom from cp in school are
unaffected by
the pain and punishment they grew up with at home.

Has no bearing. Children who are abused at home will still bear that
stigma. Those who have been taught discipline, either thru spankings or non
spankings will show that same discipline at school. But many will bow to
peer pressure, and those that don't have just been as abused by the system
because they have been subjected to complete chaos, brought on by those who
cannot distinguish between discipline and abuse who have set the standards.


Do you think non-cp at school is either supposed to be a cure-all that
will fix
the problems the child brings from home, or should be again replaced with
cp?

What about the child who brings NO problems from home??? Isn't he or she
allowed to get an education, or are they to simply sit back and watch the
complete breakdown of discipline ruin their chances at an education?


Only a fool could refuse to see the obvious. That we have created a
generation which has absolutely no respect for authority and no fear of
retribution. There are no consequences. Try your approach with teenagers
and
they'll tell you to go to hell just as quickly as not. For why not, all
it
will do is get them out of school for a day. No punishment, no
discipline.

And I suppose you'll assert that such kids were raised in a non-spank,
non-punitive environment in their earliest years when their attitudes and
values
were being firmly established?

Many were indeed. I wasn't raised in a vacuum. Again, you seem to be
following the same logic as Kane and beleive that somehow each and every
child can be treated in the exact same manner. Sorry, this is the real
world. Just ask anyone who has dealt with hyperactive children or children
who have truly been abused. Even those who weren't, be it spanked or non
spanked children, they all need an individual approach. Your one size fits
all approach doesn't work, and the attempt to portray anyone who disciplines
their child as abusive doesn't work well either.


We've listened to the psychobabble that we must never say anything
negative
to a child as it might hurt their psyche.

What do you mean by negative? Care to give a couple examples?

Never criticize a child.. always use positive reinforcement. It is quite
true that one's self esteem can be greatly damaged by continual put down's,
but it's come to the point that if you do not use some kind of positive
reinforcment or praise for every thing a child does, then one is some kind
of abusive creature.

Kane has pointed that out quite well in his ramblings.. note he has stated
that he never tells his children what to do or where to play, or that
something is wrong, but always tries to 'give them a safe place to play, a
grassy playground' etc.. or tells them how good they were (even when his
child was in a very dangerous situation).. how many 'examples' do you
need?


but what we have created is a
generation of children who are emotional cripples who cannot deal with
even
the slightest bit of criticism without going off on tantrums.

I'm not sure what children you think you're talking about. FYI, to the
best of
my knowledge, the majorityof children in the US are still spanked in early
childhood.

How far does that knowledge extend? If you listen to Kane, he's been
around many non spanking parents for all his 70 years. Over the past twenty
or thirty years, we've been bombarded with 'parenting' books and 'studies'
which attempt to portray spanking as completely abusive. The numbers of
those who use absolutely no spanking has been growing steadily.


Did you ever wonder why criticism is painful to some people and not to
others?

Criticism when done constructively should never be painful. When one has
never experienced criticism in their entire life, then they don't know how
to deal with it.

The only way criticism is painful is when one has been so abused mentally
that their self esteem is at an all time low. Hardly what we are talking
about here, taking things to the extreme as Kane has attempted throughout
this entire thread.


While
positive reinforcement is always preferable, one also has to learn to
deal
with reality and that there are negatives which arise. Those who are
denied
that, are emotionally crippled for life.

Again, care to back up your belief with some kind of substantiation?

-Jerry-

Not a belief but a fact of life which should be apparent to anyone with a
bit of common sense. How many more school shootings, or attempted school
shootings will convince you?

The kids at Columbine, and the growing numbers of those who attempt to wreck
havoc on classmates because of being ridiculed or outcast by their peers has
been growing by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Do you think this
is a new concept? Have we only recently had cliques in schools, or kids
who have been ridiculed or outcast by others?

Or could it be that we are creating a generation of emotional cripples as I
suggest. No, of course not. Let's ignore the fact that in times past, we
had the exact same conditions and kids learned to deal with it. Why do you
suppose that is?

Maybe they didn't have everything sugarcoated and spoon fed to them that the
world was such a great place, and they were such good people and that the
world revolves around them.

Maybe they realized that there would be consequences for their actions if
they decided to act upon their egotistical delights.

Again, learn to distinguish between abuse and discipline and teaching a
child right from wrong and we can have a meaningful discourse.