Unwanted effects of CP

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Doan wrote:

Kane said:

Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0? WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Doan

And this is from the authors themselves responding to letters to the
editors:

"As we emphasized in our paper, "limitations of design and measurement in
this study require caution in interpreting the findings." We stated that
"... the cross-sectional nature of the survey precludes comment on the
causal role of slapping and spanking for psychiatric disorder."

Did you read that, Kane?

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Doan wrote:

Kane said:

Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

So neither of us "lied."

My answer to your question?

There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

Are you prepared to defend a claim that there was no effect from child
CP possible in the outcomes listed? If so please explain the variance
in the outcomes ranging from "never" to "Sometimes/Often."

Coincidence?

Again, when you have run out of argument and it's obvious you are wrong
you start grammar nazi attacking.


Doan

And this is from the authors themselves responding to letters to the
editors:

"As we emphasized in our paper, "limitations of design and measurement in
this study require caution in interpreting the findings."

I don't recall ANY social science research that reached publication
that did not have, if it expected to be reviewed, similar caveats. Do
you?

It says "require caution in interpreting the finding." In fact, Doan,
that's a suggestion YOU not draw conclusions about things unlikely to
be in the study, and not put things into it that are not.

We stated that
"... the cross-sectional nature of the survey precludes comment on the
causal role of slapping and spanking for psychiatric disorder."

Yep. That's why I refer to it as "correlation." I made NO claim to
cause, but YOU introduced the concept of 'cause and effect' to pick up
on my more casual wording of the title.

I notice you were entirely absent on such subject line less strict use
of language when Fern was posting here. Double Standard, Doan?

Did you read that, Kane?

Did you understand that, Doan?

Doan

It's a correlational study. That is the case with most all social
science studies that are not unethical.

The only way one can pursue and presume a strict causal relationship is
by using physical science research methods. Those are destructive of
the subjects. That is unethical in live human subject studies.

You are arguing, as is your usually shallow ploy, against the entire
field of social/behavioral research methods, when you know perfectly
well that it is the field wide standard and no other can be used
ethically. In fact some such experimental studies in the past
overstepped those bounds and had to be abandoned midpoint.

We likely, as long as we are ethically proceeding in social science
research, always be bound by NOT being able to use the destructive
methods of physical science.

That does not destroy the significance of studies such as this that was
conducted ethically.

It leaves the reader to read, study, think, and draw their own
conclusions, rather than the ones you wish, and lie in an attempt to
make happen.

I invite the reader to view the study (open in your browser and save
for ease of searching studying the few pages -- 3 or 4 as I recall --
from the 800 page plus report) and look at all the factors involved.

Decide for yourself if this study is significant to the issue of
whether there is enough correlation between increased use of CP and
increased life problems to influence your own decisions concerning CP.

Doan hates that you might do this and will do everything he can to
distract you, because this was a very important piece of research work.
He will try to keep this a personal "debate" between he and I, and
will go to any lengths to divert you. Even to the point parsing for
single word meanings and screaming "LIAR" if I ask a question to
clarify.

He's an adult, presumably still arrested in certain areas of
development by whatever childhood trauma he may have suffered. It may
have been spanking or it may have been other events. One cannot say one
way or the other without proof, and the only information he's offered
about that time of his life was that his parents spanked him.

I will answer any questions you have, either publically or privately
and confidentially, to clarify what I know or point you to material
that will help explain the meaning of points of the study report if I
do not feel competent on that point.

Or you can take the easy way and buy Doan's bs without question.

'Sup to you.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/161/7/805 it's an autodownload source
for the doc in pdf.

Doan, you are making a complete fool of yourself with all the
hysterical ranting and screaming.

0:-

Doan wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006, 0:- wrote:
College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen

Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%


Do you really want to rehash this, ignoranus kane0? ;-)
First, you lied about the Embry Study, now you wanted to rehash this one?

I did not lie about the Embry study.

And I'm perfectly willing to "rehash this one," if you'll stop cutting
things out of context. There was no reason to leave out the rest of my
posted information surrounding this chart. Why did you?

Looked at how the "never-spanked" fared?

"Fared?" We don't know how they "fared." This is an incidence of
spanking chart, not an outcomes of spanking chart.

When 90% of the population is supposed to have been spanked it makes
such a chart, for the purpose of relating it to outcomes almost
meaningless. Who knows what non college students and non professionals
responses would show.

Or those in mental hospitals or jails.

Just 2% of College freshmen and
just 5% of Professionals! Looked like they are under-represented there
too! ;-)

You aren't making sense. Had you not snipped so much you might, but
this simply looks like "Kane is wrong because I say he is, not because
I've shown it to be true with logically argued debate with facts
included in full."

You've been doing this childish act for many years now. And it reminds
me of the threatening behavior, mixed with pointless glee 0:- seen in
the behavior of monkeys. Screeching, grimacing, leaping, thrashing
about, monkeys.

Do you know of any Great Man who were never-spanked, Kane? Did you say
Einstein? ;-)

Why would you phrase your question to exclude those where the frequency
might vary?

Do you know of any "great" men or women that were spanked infrequently,
and reported it as negiligable?

And what does "Great" actually mean? Accomplished? How? It's reported
Adolf Hitler was subjected to harsh CP frequently. Is he among the
"Great?"

Since spanking over the last few centuries is known to have been nearly
universal I can't say I know positively of any "never-spanked" that I'd
feel fully confident about claiming. We do not know the things that go
on behind closed doors. That's were spanking most often takes place.

Both the spanker and the victim might report it very differently.

And the rationale that somehow college attendence and professionalism
might be related to spanking as a cause (R R R ..yah gotta be kiddin'
Doan) is offset by other information that confounds that, when you look
at the poor. The lower the income, the more frequent the spanking, and
for poor blacks, both spanking and other punishments more frequent.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/weinberg/ Look for:
"Beat on the Brat from Slate
The economics of spanking.
By Steven E. Landsburg"

And then ...

This is attributed to A. Einstein. Until it's refuted I presume it to
be correct:

"
Albert Einstein:
"To me the worst thing seems to be for a school
principally to work with methods of fear, force and
artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the
sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of
the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. . . It
is comparatively simple to keep the school free from
this worst of all evils. Give into the power of the
teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that
the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher
is the human and intellectual qualities of the
latter."

Sure reads like the thoughts of an infrequently spanked child.

Given that he attended for a time a Catholic elementary school it's
doubtful he escaped all CP.

His early independent spirit which his family seemed to aquies to so
willingly would suggest he was not subject to much punishment in the
home. No mention of discipline by his parents in any of his biographies
that I've found. They indulged him a great deal, even in his education,
allowing him, when he was dissatisfied with the courses in Gymnasium
(what we call, High School) to pursue his own indepent course of study
outside school.

He in fact did what many homeschooled children do, work and study from
libraries and other sources.

I doubt he, whether or not he was spanked, approved of it:
""Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

"If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales.
If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales."
Albert Einstein"

Somehow I opine that he would not correlate college attendance and
professionalism to the increased incidence of spanking in those
populations. Do you?

Please show something other than claims, if so. Something accessbile on
line might be nice. 0:-

Something that includes the incidence of spanking for those NOT having
gone to college, or become professionals. We need something to compare
to to decide if we want to spank our kids into college and the
professions, right?

Who knows how mundane and ordinary the life of Adolf would have been
had he been a "never-spanked" child, eh?

Doan

Kane

0:- wrote:
http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Psychiatric and addiction: Dr. Harriet McMillan of McMaster University
in Hamilton, ON Canada led a six-person team which studied the possible
association between childhood spanking and subsequent behavior problems
in adulthood. 3 They based their study on data collected as part of a
1990 population health survey by the Ontario Ministry of Health of
10,000 adults in the province. Five thousand of the subjects had been
asked questions about spanking during childhood. Unlike many previous
studies, the researchers deleted from the sample group anyone who
recalled being physically or sexually abused. This left adults who had
only been spanked and/or slapped during childhood. Incidences of adult
disorders we

Adult.............Never spanked Rarely spanked Sometimes/often spanked
disorder

Anxiety...............16.3%...............8.8%.... ..................21.3%

Major depression...4.6%...............4.8%.............. ..........6.9%

Alcohol abuse.......5.8%.............10.2%................ .......13.2%
or addiction

More
than............7.5%..............12.6%........... ............16.7%
one disorder *

* More than one disorder included illicit drug abuse, addictions &
antisocial behavior.

Their results were published in the Canadian Medical Journal for
1995-OCT. 4 They reported that "there appears to be a linear
association between the frequency of slapping and spanking during
childhood and a lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse
or dependence and externalizing problems."
http://www.nospank.net/adctn.htm
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/161/7/805

http://stoptherod.net/research.htm

Degree of............
Never.........Rare........Moderate.......Severe... .......Extreme
physical
punishment

Violent

inmates.....0%...........0%.............0%........ .......0%...............100%
at San Quentin


Juvenile................0%...........2%........... ..3%..............31%................64%
Delinquents

High

School.........0%...........7%.............23%.... .........69%.................0%
drop-outs


College...............2%...........23%............ 40%..............33%.................0%
freshmen


Professionals......5%..........40%............36%. .............17%.................0%

Taking part in this survey we 200 psychologists who filled out
anonymous questionnaires, 372 college students at the University of
California, Davis and California State University at Fresno, 52 slow
track underachievers at Richmond High School. Delinquents were
interviewed by Dr. Ralph Welsh in Bridgeport, Connecticut and by Dr.
Alan Button in Fresno, California. Prisoner information was by courtesy
of Hobart Banks, M.S.W., counselor of difficult prisoners at San
Quentin Penitentiary, San Quentin, California.
http://www.naturalchild.org/research...unishment.html

Seventy percent of child abuse cases begin as spanking.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/info-u/families/BE712.html

Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

A 1985 study of 1,000 families by family violence researcher Murray
Straus found that parents inflicted nearly twice as many severe, and
nearly four times as many total, violent acts on their teenage children
than the other way around. 51 Other studies indicate Straus' findings
may be conservative. A 1988 survey of 1,146 parents found that 80
percent of the children under age 10, two-thirds of the
10-14-year-olds, and one-third of the 15-17 year-olds were hit or
struck by their parents within the previous year. Parents are nearly
four times more likely to commit simple assault, and twice as likely to
commit severe or aggravated assault, against their teenage children
than the other way around. Two thousand to 5,000 children are killed by
their parents every year, with most called "accidents."52
http://nospank.net/males.htm

Doan wrote:

Say, Doan, what was the sample size of families in the Baumrind study
you used to tout as "The Gold Standard?"

R R R R R R R

Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!


Doan

wrote:
Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!

Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible
claims.

Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID?

The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.

Doan

Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N
sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The
Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families.

That is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick.

Can't have it both ways, Doan.

You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.

In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so
small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when
you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected
my error.

You're a little ****head. Nothing more.

And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you
have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you
choose "liar."

Good for you. You are consistent.

R R R R R

On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:
Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!

Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible
claims.

Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity!

Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.

So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-)

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID?

LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read. If you made
the claim, it's WRONG. You then denied making the claim; THAT IS
A LIE - A BLATANT LIE!

The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.

Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed.
Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-)

Doan

Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N
sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The
Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families.

The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and
it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in
the study.

That is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

You meant you LIED! ;-)

OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick.

Neither! I was right all along!

Can't have it both ways, Doan.

You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.

LOL! Tell that to your mom!

In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so
small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when
you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected
my error.

Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"?

You're a little ****head. Nothing more.

Oops! More adhom. Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-)

And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you
have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you
choose "liar."

And you are STUPID! ;-)

Good for you. You are consistent.

And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 1 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


wrote:
Kane said:


Where did I say the Effect of CP?

Why do you always BLATANTLY LIED, Kane0?

A question by definition cannot be a "lie."

It is when it contradicted what you claimed! You are a liar!

So neither of us "lied."

But you did!

My answer to your question?
There is no reason I "always lied," because I did not lie. "Always" or
then. I asked you a question.

You just lied again!

WHAT IS IN THE SUBJECT LINE?

Unwanted effects of CP.

And yes you said you did not claim so. You are a LIAR! QED!

Doan, the petulant child, you do such things on matters of considerably
greater importance, and you appear to deliberately try to decieve, just
as in the Canadian study, and in your claims to be an advocate of
parents making their own decisions, yet posting nothing in favor of
non-spanking, and always attacking non-spanking research and posting
pro spanker research and defending it endlessly the stupidest possible
claims.

Actually, I EXPOSED your LIES and stupidity!

No, you exposed yourself for the child you are. Attempting to make a
"lie" out of something not intended to decieve, and making IT the focus
instead of the content of the material offered. Evasions, childish
babbling, screaming your accusations, claiming things that are not so,
but are because YOU say they are.

Unless I tried deliberately to decieved, I did not lie. Mistake,
possibly.

So now it's a "mistake"??? ;-)

Yes. But only because YOU instisted my meaning had to do with "cause
and effect."

Insisting that they are one and the same, so that you could attach
"causation" to the study, which is NOT a claim I made.

I do not consider subject lines as critical to a discussion as the
content. I did not claim "effect' in the content, but what IF I DID?

LOL! The subject line is the first thing that is read.

How does the order of something one reads constitute the sum total of
entire document?

If you made
the claim, it's WRONG.

The only "claim" I made I made in the subject line was the causual use
of the term "effect." It was YOU that attacked "cause" to it, to lie.
To try to make it something it was not.

You then denied making the claim; THAT IS
A LIE - A BLATANT LIE!

No, it was a mistake. And not a deliberate attempt to decieve. And it
was in response you YOUR amending what "effect" meant...which I had not
claimed. I never said "causation" in relation to the study. YOU added
that.

The most that can be claimed is that I'm wrong, not LIED, you silly
little pointless ****.

Oops! Resorting back to adhom again whenever your LIES is exposed.

Nope. Labeling you for the silly little pointless **** you are by
forcing meaning into something not intended.

Your silly game of using "cause and effect" to mean "causation."
Nothing more.

Tell me, is that what your mom taught you? ;-)

My mother taught me not be be like you, a liar and cheat, with nothing
going for you but these small asides and tangental excapes when you
have been caugth making a mistake.

You were, I caught you at it and now you are busy trying to distract
from NOT understand the Canadian study, or the meaning of the data, or
even, Doan, that it was not a Canadian population representative
sample.

Rather than admit you missed that, here we are, YOU trying to argue
about MY having LIED after YOU changed the meaning of my subject line.

Doan

Compare that to your claim the Embry study lacked a large enough N
sample of families to your lauding Baumrinds, and I quote you, "The
Gold Standard" where the N was 33 families.

The sample size in that study is 13! It was not peer-reviewed and
it was never published in any journal! Punishment was employed in
the study.

The sample size was 33. I am reading it right now. You do NOT have the
study, if you are making that claim. It was N 13 and N 20, with both
being considered in the study, and both clearly identified as having a
difference...but only in the pre-action portion of the study by
baseline behaviors. It was a total of 33. All the charts, all the
identifiers, all call it a 33 family study.

I never claimed it was published in a "journal," nor that it was peer
reviewed and have in fact said to the best of my knowledge it was not
(not being able to prove a negative, of course).

And I said punishment was not used I pointed out that I differed with
the author on the use of the term "punish" for setting the child down
for an instructional viewing of other children performing "safe play."

If you have the study, then you are lying about how he presented it,
and if you don't, you are lying when you claimed you did.


That is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

You meant you LIED! ;-)

What deliberate attempt to deceived did I in fact perform?

You are simply shoveling **** to distract from our conversation where I
exposed your ignorance of study protocols and the meaning of
terminology.

You got hammered on your failure to see that the age range differences
were irrelevant to the outcome being examined, and YOU kept asking why
the older people had lower or higher incidences of bad life
outcomes....when NO SUCH CORRELATION WAS OFFERED BY THE STUDY.

You, sir, unless you were lying, were mistaken.

Live with it and stop your silly assed weaseling.

OUR you can claim you were mistaken. Take your pick.

Neither! I was right all along!

You were hairsplitting to remove any intended meaning and insisting on
injecting your own meaning without consultation with the author. When I
offer my meaning you reject it and insist that YOUR understanding has
to be MY meaning.


Can't have it both ways, Doan.

You have NEVER ONCE proven I lied about a damn thing here that could
not have been a mistake.

LOL! Tell that to your mom!

In other words, you have not relevant factual rebutal.

In fact I've identified my own mistake just recently, and you are so
small and puny and sick in the head, and ego disfunctional that when
you are losing on some point, you go to bring it up, though I corrected
my error.

Have you ever apologized to me for your "mistake"?

Never. Why should I?

Have ever even admitted to your obvious mistakes, let alone apologized?


I don't expect you to.

Post evidence of my mistake, which I DID should be suffienct for
someone that's ethical, someone thats honest, someone that has
integrety to stop using the same mistake, sans it's correction to
pretend the poster lied or attempted to deceive.

You are a shame to family.


You're a little ****head. Nothing more.

Oops! More adhom.

Opps yourself, moron, you do it all the time.

Let's see now. You mom is proud of that too. ;-)

I can't ask her but I doubt she would be doing anything other than
laughing at your run from your error instead of a honest and courageous
admission.

You screwed up and rather than admit it, you have gone to the usual low
rent sloppy attack mode. Try to force meaning into someone else's words
rather than ask them, and rather than accept their clarification.

Scum behavior.

And a liar who's lies I've proven are either lies or mistakes. And you
have NOT come back and admitted your mistake, so .... I take it you
choose "liar."

And you are STUPID! ;-)

I admit to be stupid enough to think you have even a shred of honesty
or ethic.

Good for you. You are consistent.

And you are Ignoranus Kan0! ;-)

Opps! Ad hom, Doan.

What would your parents think?

You cannot win and argument honestly, and have nothing left but this
small minded ****ant pseudo debate, which is blatant fallacious
crappola in debating circles.

You got caught and you haven't the balls, like I had, to admit to the
mistake and move on. I don't even want an apology from you. At least I
certainly don't expect one.

I assume, as you should, that a mistake isn't deliberate aimed at
anyone. YOU want to pretend it's a lie and aimed at someone to decieve
them.

You, sir, are projecting, big time. That's YOUR intent with nearly all
you post here. To decieve.

You touted Baumrind study to this ng as "The Gold Standard" for
methodology, then attacked Embry on the grounds his N of families
wasn't adequate for a scientific study...while all the time knowing
that the Baumrind study had the same N of families.

Or had you forgotten and the criticism of Embry on your part for the
number of subjects was just a "mistake?"

You had no desire to decieve, right?

Doan

Weasel boy, run run run.

R R R R R R

The strange and mysterious world of "The Believers."

Who are they? The believers?

All of us, of course. It's inevitable that we bring our biases to our
thinking. Even Einstein suffered from that. He went many years, and to
the end of his life in conflict with quantum mechanics, an accepted
theory by the discipline of physics.

But why do we do this, and is there an answer to it?

Yes, and Einstein practiced it. He was perfectly comfortable with his
"mistaken" position. This because he applied logic and prior
knowledge and critical thinking to the concepts and could not resolve
it to acceptance of what ALL those others believed.

Now, long after his death, the questions about quantum mechanics and
the belief in it are being challenged by new theories and a great deal
of rational logical analysis. Scientific analysis.

For thousand and thousands of years, even as long as 20,000 years most
likely, the common belief about the nature of the universe did NOT
include that the earth is a ovoid, in cross section, shaped ball, that
circles the sun, that shares that sun with others of roughly the same
shape circling the sun, and that entire set or "System" as it's
called, circles a larger center, which is part of a more gigantic
conglomeration that circles yet another larger.

We believed for thousands of years that it was moral and ethical to
capture and enslave other people to work and even die for our profit or
pleasure, and that it was even in fact our duty to do so for their
betterment they were so lowly and less than fully human.

Many societies, isolated from others, for millennium, held that women
were property, giving them the same status as "cattle" from the
word, "Chattel." They could be used in any way that fit their
husbands mood and fancy, or discarded at will, even killed without
answering to anyone if she displeased or "betrayed" him in certain
ways.

We believed that our body was made up of "humors" that could be out
of balance and could be re-balanced by adding or extracting the humors
of blood, phlegm, choler, and black bile, whose relative proportions
were thought in ancient and medieval physiology to determine a person's
disposition and general health.

We in fact believed that some people, women in most particular could
harbor evil entities within them and themselves be witches possessed of
these daemons.

We even tortured and killed them so convinced of this were we.

We took children to these burning to teach them.

We encouraged children to be at various executions, from stoning to
beheading, all in the belief that they would "learn" from them.

And we believed in beating the devil out of them....and literally
believed they were possessed naturally by the devil and "he" had to
be driven out.

And we spanked. We spanked to "teach" them to not do things. We
spanked to force them to learn other things. A child not studious and
devoted enough to studies was thrashed not unlike Singaporeans cane
their children today, to "teach" them.

The parallels to spanking children and believing a lot of things that
have been proven to be mis or uninformed and superstitious beliefs is
unmistakable.

Who would know the child best but the parent, eh? But what of those
that practiced beating the devil out of them? Didn't they know the
child best as well?

Could it be that yesterdays devil exorciser and today's "spanking
with love" folks both made assumptions that were and are untrue?

Some of the most violent, and backward people on the planet us CP on
children, and adults for that matter.

And some of the most advanced, a few, still cling to violence toward
children to "teach them."

And some of those claim that the more advanced societies in fact are
all spanking societies, or that all spanking societies are all advanced
societies.

The fact is, neither is true.

The current crop of terrorists, for instance, are raised in the same
kind of violent thrashing teaching that occurs in say Singapore.

Why is there a difference between what comes out of the Madrases of
Pakistan and the homes and schools and communities of Singapore?

Well, the answer is very simple really. Different cultures that have
other influencing variables.

But IS Singapore in fact a truly crime free and peaceful place, or is
that only a surface appearance like the fascists of pre WWII that made
the trains run on time, but slaughtered RR workers to make it happen?

Singapore shows very much that something is going on behind the scenes.
Like similar very closed and hidden government systems, they hide the
real numbers. Eventually they begin to leak out though as incident
after incident surfaces. Much like Japan once appearing to be such a
peaceful place, and now we learn of horrendous violence among school
children that is a companion to school paddlings, slappings, and CP of
various kinds, along with insult and rudeness of the teachers toward
the children.

But how do Singaporeans treat each other in secret, behind closed
doors? Do they in fact engage in illegal and immoral activities in
settings where they are less likely to get caught? Say allowing the
initiation of the activity to be outside the country, but ending in
their country where the law does not apply.

In other words does the Cane teach morality, or just compliance?

How do they, for instance, treat their domestic servants, both by law
and by the hiring family?

http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=174

They do such things as tattoo property marks on them. And worse.

And the government does NOT include them under labor laws protecting
Singaporeans.

If CP was such a successful strategy for controlling and presumably
teaching people where would this be coming from:

http://www.corpun.com/sgj00111.htm
A list of horrendous crimes, violent and brutal.

Why if caning works, and the threat of caning, as some claim, just as
they do about the paddle hanging in the kitchen or in the schoolroom,
is there such a lot of crime still in Singapore? Look at the kinds and
number of police agencies they require to deal with their crime:

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countr...t_Departments/
http://tinyurl.com/dh5db

And why does Singapore, if caning is so good a teacher, need the death
penalty for trafficking in Marijuana?

Just as spanking tends to create sneaky rather than compliant children
(they LOOK compliant, but wait until the parent is looking or present)
Singapore's draconian punishments not only creates sneakiness but
horrific danger to others, including death by execution:
http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_hi...barbarism.html "Posted
by: Sara Lander | Dec 1, 2005 3:29:10 AM
Not enough people are aware that even those who don't traffic drugs are
taking a big chance visiting Singapore. Drug smugglers often bribe
baggage officials to let them stash their drugs in some poor
unsuspecting person's luggage, with plans of someone in Singapore
collecting the luggage *after* it has cleared customs. Since
Singapore's judicial system puts the defendant at burden of proving
innocence, someone caught with drugs in their bags is at great risk of
getting hanged, even if they are not drug smugglers. There have been
several cases where people ultimately hanged did not appear to be
actual drug smugglers. In one case, a couple traveling with their kid
was caught, and eventually the couple was hanged despite pleas that the
drugs were planted. I remember reading that the couple had to contact
family members to arrange foster care for their kid."

Urban legend? I doubt it.

But is there really a lowered crime rate, or are their hidden crimes
going on despite the harsh penalties, and thrashing with a Cane.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/W...IC-POLICY.html
"Hidden crime
-particularly in the form of money laundering for narcotics
operations from elsewhere in Asia, and transhipment of illegally
harvested timber from Indonesian rainforests-does occur in Singapore,
although Goh's government tends to downplay its existence."

Perfectly willing to launder drug money, but will kill those that
traffic in the country. So much for the morality that comes with
Caning. What else is Goh's government hiding?

Well, a domestic violence problem, for one.

http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps03_006.pdf
http://www.unifemsingapore.org.sg/re...c_violence.pdf
http://www.subcourts.gov.sg/research...ns/issue25.pdf
http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abst...2/5_suppl_1/47

The Straus study reported that in Singapore, 27.8% of females and 11.6%
of males had perpetrated partner assaults - more than a two-fold
difference. In India, 25.8% of females and 12.5% of males had committed
severe assaults. Straus concludes, "the most important similarity is
the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students
in all the countries." [http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID16.pdf]

http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/doc/Monograph1.pdf
Reading this and the kinds of child rearing considered normal in
Singapore helps give a clearer picture of just how under the radar all
kinds of crime, including child abuse, actually are.
Caning of hands and feet of children is an accepted practice, and there
is no "spanking with love" even. Expressions of love and approval
are routinely withheld for fear it will make the child too independent
hard to control.

While this may be perfectly fine to defend as a "cultural"
difference it invalidates using Singapore as a comparison model for the
United States and our less harsh parenting beliefs.

2002 2003
Number of Juveniles Arrested 2,376 2,515p
Number Newly Placed on Probation 797 1,151
- Juveniles 473 538
- Adults 324 613
Number of Admissions to 383 575
MCDS Juvenile Homes

Looks like caning didn't work so well for these.

This and other examples of thinking error, and the incapacity to
separate out long held false beliefs from more recent and logical
causes the spanking to go on.

Yet, we did find the earth was not flat, and that women and children,
and humans are not chattel.

It's about time we admitted that corporal punishment does not work
the way we wish and have believed it works, regardless of how LONG we
have believed it.

Kane