Old news:Pro-Family Advocates Throw Light on 'Anti-Spanking' Study

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/282002c.asp

Pro-Family Advocates Throw Light on 'Anti-Spanking' Study

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to
discipline him. [Proverbs 13:24]

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not
depart from it. [Proverbs 22:6]


By Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown
June 28, 2002

(AgapePress) - Several pro-family spokespersons are critical of a new study
that claims spanking causes long-term damage to children.

Psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff of Columbia University says her study,
published in a recent issue of Psychological Review, the journal of the
American Psychological Association, shows spanking causes aggression,
anti-social behavior, and mental problems in kids. But while she contends
"long-term harm" is inflicted by spanking, she admits there is no scientific
basis for her conclusions.

Dr. Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, who says Gershoff
obviously has an agenda, says there is a big difference between spanking and
beating a child.

"Those are very different kinds of things," Crouse says. "But the beauty of
spanking, to me, is that once it's over, it's over -- and the child feels
like 'I have paid the price for my disobedience, I have suffered the
consequences, and now I can move on.' "

Crouse says contrary to this study's findings, it is the absence of spanking
that has contributed to worse behavior problems in children and rising crime
among young people.

"It just is very amusing to me to stand by and listen to some very young,
immature parents try to reason with a two-year-old, a three-year-old, or a
four-year-old -- and obviously, the child doesn't understand what the parent
is reasoning about. But what they do understand is that they can manipulate
that parent."

Crouse says it takes courage for a parent to discipline a child the
old-fashioned way, rather then relying on liberal psycho-babble and ProzacÒ
..

Dr. Bill Maier, a child psychologist at Focus on the Family, also debunks
Gershoff's study. He says parents have employed spanking as a means of
discipline for a long time -- and with good results.

"The study implies that every parent using non-abusive corporal punishment
does so out of uncontrollable rage," Maier says. "For years, millions of
parents have lovingly and intentionally administered mild corporal
punishment out of a true desire to raise happy, secure children -- and have
been successful."

According to Focus on the Family, almost two-thirds of the studies Gershoff
reviewed measured only severe corporal punishment -- such as slapping the
face, beatings, or hitting with a fist. Despite that, Gershoff uses those
results to argue against all forms of corporal punishment.

Dr. Walt Larimore is a family physician and vice president of medical
outreach for Focus. He disagrees with Gershoff, who told The Washington Post
that because of the numerous risks associated with corporal punishment, she
can think of no situation where a child should be spanked.

"Parents should never discipline their children in anger," Larimore says,
"however it is an offensive notion that lovingly administered spanking is
tantamount to abuse."

Larimore says parents should be outraged to know that their efforts to raise
obedient, well-adjusted children have been equated with child abuse.

© 2002 AgapePress all rights reserved

Spanking is not the preferred alternative, but neither is it a straight ticket
to hell.

Fortunately, even Canada recognizes the liberty interests parents have in the
raising, and rearing of their children, and like the US have affirmed that
spanking is legal.

The cry babies on this NG were probably beaten because of their persistent,
difficult behavior, or because they had not too intelligent parents.

Most of them have NOT reproduced. Chris has not. (Founder of this NG--so much
of what he posts is simply theory)

I wonder if he ever talks to his Mom and it appears his Dad disappeared.

Sad.....

On 20 Apr 2004 15:44:11 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

Spanking is not the preferred alternative, but neither is it a
straight ticket
to hell.

Fortunately, even Canada recognizes the liberty interests parents
have in the
raising, and rearing of their children, and like the US have affirmed
that
spanking is legal.

Yep. No instruments allowed. No children of ages older then 14 or so,
and none under 2, isn't it?

And of course all the usual restrictions about leaving marks and such.
Which leaves out shaking the baby, throwing children up against walls,
feeding them opiates to quiet them, and suspending them and letting
one's church members have a go with objects.

The cry babies on this NG were probably beaten because of their
persistent,
difficult behavior, or because they had not too intelligent parents.

Gosh I don't know about you, as you seem unable to remember (often
shock to a child, such as an extreme betrayal by trusted caregivers
will do that to yah) but I suspect that most of you spanking
compulsives and apologists and defenders of them are more likely to
have just that condition.

I think it very enlightened, and courageous of you, to say so.

Congratulations on the breakthrough.

Most of them have NOT reproduced.

But I thought you had children or at least a child. What is with the
focus on unruly teens if you didn't? And the blaming of CPS for not
being able to parent your children?

Chris has not. (Founder of this NG--so much
of what he posts is simply theory)

Neither has Good Ol' TX Chris, who spouts "non-spanker by choice."

And besides, I've given up trying to find a doctor to treat me that
has had all the same illnesses or injuries I've had. I guess one can
learn a great deal about setting a broken leg without going out and
taking a hammer to one's on.

I wonder if he ever talks to his Mom and it appears his Dad
disappeared.

No telling. Are you lubricating and rubbing your crotch as you ask?

What "appears," to be, if you wish to use that system of questioning,
opens YOU up for others to discuss what YOU "appear" to be doing.

YOU appear to be publically rubbing yourself to orgasm.

Sad.....

I know. I've commented on it many times, yet you continue like a
frightened, compulsion driven child that has no other way to express
control over self and environment.

It's common in children that have been sexually abused. It "appears"
to me that you could be one of those victims. People actually can
have, and do have, suppressed memories if the shock was great enough.

We wish you would see someone about your possible condition and how it
manifests here in these ngs, and "appears" to us who observe it.

One of the most impressive symtoms is the tendency toward obscuring
and avoiding and concealing that is manifest in your compulsion to
not include the remarks of those you are commenting about from their
post....or did you lose the thread?

I believe Greegor recently posted a complaint about your posting in
that you don't post in the same thread. Check it out with him, will
you, Willow?

Best wishes to you, and have a wonderful day, Sir/Madam/It!

Kane

"billyf" wrote in message ...
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/282002c.asp

Pro-Family Advocates Throw Light on 'Anti-Spanking' Study

I did not know that one is automatically pro-family by the simple
expedient of being a pro-spanking compulsive.

And that being anti spanking automatically makes one anti family.

Am I misunderstanding the title in some way?

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to
discipline him. [Proverbs 13:24]

Yes, and he who disagrees with his soveriegn on matters of ownership
of the child get's threatened with the dismemberment of the child.
Hopefully family courts will remember this great wisdom, also from
Proverbs, and apply it in those matters of contention in child
placement in divorce proceedings.

It would so speed things up, and probably not more than a handfull of
children would actually be rendered assunder.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not
depart from it. [Proverbs 22:6]

Yes, Hitler proved that absolutely and conclusively, as have a number
of other despots. Of course, correlation isn't causation so maybe I'm
wrong. Hitler and others probably just weren't spanked enough.

By Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown
June 28, 2002

(AgapePress) - Several pro-family spokespersons are critical of a new study
that claims spanking causes long-term damage to children.

It is rumoured that several pro family spokespersons are the ones that
work on such studies.

Of course they could be rabidly anti family, but so far I've not seen
anything, beyond their interest in looking at the facts, and probably
an underlying bias toward not hurting children, that would suggest it.

Psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff of Columbia University says her study,
published in a recent issue of Psychological Review, the journal of the
American Psychological Association, shows spanking causes aggression,
anti-social behavior, and mental problems in kids. But while she contends
"long-term harm" is inflicted by spanking, she admits there is no scientific
basis for her conclusions.

That depends on ones definition of "scientific." There is "scientific"
as in physics and engineering, where one can routinely use destructive
methods to completely test a theory, and then there are the social
scienes where one cannot ethically (hence they could publish for peer
review a destructive testing methodolgy) do such test but must instead
rely on estimations, and statistical modelling almost entirely.

There is a history, before the moralists outcries where heard, of some
destructive testing of humans, and there are certainly the study of
the incidental uncontrolled events around CP collected from
observasions and interviews.

It's a rather large body, and in a practicial sense it can be used to
make more educated and informed decisions...but more on that latter in
this reply to the post.

Dr. Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, who says Gershoff
obviously has an agenda, says there is a big difference between spanking and
beating a child.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...ye+Inst itute
or http://tinyurl.com/3xks6
" Harvest House Publishers | The Strength of a Godly Woman... Janice
Shaw Crouse, Ph.D ... Dr. Crouse, a passionate advocate for
traditional values and biblically based solutions to society's
problems, has written many ...
www.harvesthousepublishers.com/ book.cfm?ProductID=6910131 - 38k -
Cached - Similar pages"

We are pleased that an academic of such objectivity would comment. And
especially an academic and author of such christian godliness.

"Those are very different kinds of things," Crouse says.

Yes, they certainly are. Beatings are extreme. Spankings are less so.

"But the beauty of
spanking,

I recall that women in olden times, too poor for rouge, or in a hurry,
would sometimes slap and pinch their own faces to bring out their
coloring in a more attractive reddening. I wonder if that is what she
is referring to?

Are children's buttocks more beautiful and attractive by the reddening
of them? I wonder if children's buttock rouge could find a market?

to me, is that once it's over, it's over -- and the child feels
like 'I have paid the price for my disobedience, I have suffered the
consequences, and now I can move on.' "

Saddly, Ms Rouge...ah, Ms Crouse is unaware that this is not how
children think. In fact, below the age of reason (as some Christians
have labelled it..see Catholicism, age of reason)do not "think" in the
sense she presents. They are incapable of true cause and effect
reasoning. And science has come to agree with Christianity on this.
Brain scans and careful testing (non-destructive, thankfully) shows
they cannot, for instance, distinguish that volumes are the same if
the identical volumetric containers happen to be of different shapes.

It's a dead giveaway, and 5s can't and 7s can tell. Six is the magic
year. Wait to beat children senseless when they are six and older and
they will have a chance of attacking a cause to the effect of your
actions. LIKE YOU ARE ****ING NUTCASE AND THEY BEST START LOOKING FOR
A LARGE KNIFE TO FEND YOU OFF THE NEXT TIME YOU LOSE YOUR ****ING
MIND.

Now were was I. Oh yes.....

Crouse says contrary to this study's findings, it is the absence of spanking
that has contributed to worse behavior problems in children and rising crime
among young people.

This is a wonderful observation. In the interests of science I wonder
if Ms Crouse, and other unbiased academics of her ilk could provide
something other than anecdotal material to support this claim.

Certainly 90% of the US population would benefit by knowing and seeing
proof that 10% of the youth population is responsible for all the
youth crime.

"It just is very amusing to me to stand by and listen to some very young,
immature parents try to reason with a two-year-old, a three-year-old, or a
four-year-old -- and obviously, the child doesn't understand what the parent
is reasoning about. But what they do understand is that they can manipulate
that parent."

And most obviously the answer is in the one tool. No others exist as
they would all be as ineffective as reasoning.

Crouse says it takes courage for a parent to discipline a child the
old-fashioned way, rather then relying on liberal psycho-babble and ProzacÒ
.

Yep. Sure got them there. This is why, with 90% of the population
having experienced spanking, our society is virtually crime free.
Especially youth crime.

Dr. Bill Maier, a child psychologist at Focus on the Family, also debunks
Gershoff's study. He says parents have employed spanking as a means of
discipline for a long time -- and with good results.

I kmow. The world is close to being a paradise because of the strict
application of paddle and switch. We could take a lesson from our
third world neighbors and kill a few chidlren publically. Now that
would put the fear of G...oh, wait, I'm an athiest...what metaphore is
left to me?

Let me see now...........oh yes, Put the fear of parents in them. Yes,
that will do it nicely. Thank you for your patience.

"The study implies that every parent using non-abusive corporal punishment
does so out of uncontrollable rage," Maier says.

I missed something. I'll have to go back and take one of those
critical thinking classes I used to instruct in college. I found no
such implication. What I did find was some reference to those that
abused in a rage were often heard to claim they were just
disciplining.

But that brings up an interesting question...no, let that wait for a
bit. Let's don't jump ahead to quickly.

"For years, millions of
parents have lovingly and intentionally administered mild corporal
punishment out of a true desire to raise happy, secure children -- and have
been successful."

That is obviously why the world is obviously a secure and happy place.

Now if we can just get that remaining 10% to go to the whip when the
child is still and infant.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=spank+infants

Nope that one doesn't work. Let's try again.

http://www.nncc.org/Series/good.time.guid.html

Nah, not that one.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.foche.net/TUAC.htm

"reason; even mice and rats can be trained to respond to stimuli.
Careful training can make a dog perfectly obedient. If a seeing-eye
dog can be trained to reliably lead a blind man through the obstacles
of a city street, shouldn't a parent expect more out of an
intelligent child? A dog can be trained not to touch a tasty morsel
laid in front of him. Can't a child be trained not to touch? A dog
can be trained to come, stay, sit, be quiet or fetch upon command. You
may not have trained your dog that well, yet every day someone
accomplishes it on the dumbest mutts. Even a clumsy teenager can be
trained to be an effective trainer in a dog obedience school. "

Oh, wait, let me check that again to make sure...

Yes, that's it alright:

(this one is on stopping baby from biting the mother while nursing)

"Somewhere in the
brain that information is unconsciously stored. After two or three
times of biting, with the accompanying head hurting, the child
programs that
information away for his own comfort. The biting habit is cured before
it starts. This is not discipline. It is obedience training. "

According to Focus on the Family,

A more objective unbiased source one couldn't hope for, home of the
great Dachsund Combat Trainer, James Dobson:

http://www.family.org/

almost two-thirds of the studies Gershoff
reviewed measured only severe corporal punishment -- such as slapping the
face, beatings, or hitting with a fist. Despite that, Gershoff uses those
results to argue against all forms of corporal punishment.

I guess that removes the remaining one third as valid. That's surely a
profound example of objectivity.

Dr. Walt Larimore is a family physician and vice president of medical
outreach for Focus. He disagrees with Gershoff, who told The Washington Post
that because of the numerous risks associated with corporal punishment, she
can think of no situation where a child should be spanked.

Yet another unbiased objective contributor from Focus on the Family.

"Parents should never discipline their children in anger," Larimore says,
"however it is an offensive notion that lovingly administered spanking is
tantamount to abuse."

Lovingly administered spanking has one of the most wonderful of
outcomes in some cases. A powerful argument for connecting love and
pain in the reasoning mind of the child.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...dism+masochism

Nothing like expanding the horizons of pleasure. I've heard that some
Christian evangalists have been led to greater pleasure by this very
child hood experience of spanking.

Larimore says parents should be outraged to know that their efforts to raise
obedient, well-adjusted children have been equated with child abuse.

I should say. I think it an outrage that non-spanking parents should
be accused of creating criminals and monsters by being unwilling to
parent with pain....oh, wait. I think I missed the point.

© 2002 AgapePress all rights reserved

Well, well. Copyrighted. Let's see if they'll go after me and not the
original poster.

R R R R

Have a wonderful day, Compulsives.

Kane

I did not know that one is automatically
pro-family by the simple expedient of
being a pro-spanking compulsive.

Do you suppose your ATHEISM has any
connection to your pro-gay stance or
your reference to parents as
"bio reproduction units or as the gays
refer to them derisively, "breeders"?

A pure coincidence, no doubt!

So, you have a long list of individuals whose personal opinions are in
disagreement with the results of an actual research study. It's tough
when research reveals results which challenge personal opinion.

Let those individuals design, implement, and publish research that
supports their personal opinion. Then their opinions have validity.

Contrary to all scientific research, I could hold the opinion that the
earth is indeed flat. Without research supporting my position, what I
believe has no validity. So it is with the people you mention below.

Personal opinion is evidence of nothing but personal opinion.

LaVonne

billyf wrote:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/282002c.asp

Pro-Family Advocates Throw Light on 'Anti-Spanking' Study

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to
discipline him. [Proverbs 13:24]

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not
depart from it. [Proverbs 22:6]


By Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown
June 28, 2002

(AgapePress) - Several pro-family spokespersons are critical of a new study
that claims spanking causes long-term damage to children.

Psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff of Columbia University says her study,
published in a recent issue of Psychological Review, the journal of the
American Psychological Association, shows spanking causes aggression,
anti-social behavior, and mental problems in kids. But while she contends
"long-term harm" is inflicted by spanking, she admits there is no scientific
basis for her conclusions.

Dr. Janice Crouse of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, who says Gershoff
obviously has an agenda, says there is a big difference between spanking and
beating a child.

"Those are very different kinds of things," Crouse says. "But the beauty of
spanking, to me, is that once it's over, it's over -- and the child feels
like 'I have paid the price for my disobedience, I have suffered the
consequences, and now I can move on.' "

Crouse says contrary to this study's findings, it is the absence of spanking
that has contributed to worse behavior problems in children and rising crime
among young people.

"It just is very amusing to me to stand by and listen to some very young,
immature parents try to reason with a two-year-old, a three-year-old, or a
four-year-old -- and obviously, the child doesn't understand what the parent
is reasoning about. But what they do understand is that they can manipulate
that parent."

Crouse says it takes courage for a parent to discipline a child the
old-fashioned way, rather then relying on liberal psycho-babble and ProzacÒ
.

Dr. Bill Maier, a child psychologist at Focus on the Family, also debunks
Gershoff's study. He says parents have employed spanking as a means of
discipline for a long time -- and with good results.

"The study implies that every parent using non-abusive corporal punishment
does so out of uncontrollable rage," Maier says. "For years, millions of
parents have lovingly and intentionally administered mild corporal
punishment out of a true desire to raise happy, secure children -- and have
been successful."

According to Focus on the Family, almost two-thirds of the studies Gershoff
reviewed measured only severe corporal punishment -- such as slapping the
face, beatings, or hitting with a fist. Despite that, Gershoff uses those
results to argue against all forms of corporal punishment.

Dr. Walt Larimore is a family physician and vice president of medical
outreach for Focus. He disagrees with Gershoff, who told The Washington Post
that because of the numerous risks associated with corporal punishment, she
can think of no situation where a child should be spanked.

"Parents should never discipline their children in anger," Larimore says,
"however it is an offensive notion that lovingly administered spanking is
tantamount to abuse."

Larimore says parents should be outraged to know that their efforts to raise
obedient, well-adjusted children have been equated with child abuse.

© 2002 AgapePress all rights reserved

Fern5827 wrote:
Spanking is not the preferred alternative, but neither is it a straight ticket
to hell.

Gosh, I have no idea whether or not spanking is "a straight ticket to
hell." I thought heaven and hell decisions were made by God.

Fortunately, even Canada recognizes the liberty interests parents have in the
raising, and rearing of their children, and like the US have affirmed that
spanking is legal.

Oh my goodness. And within the last two weeks you declared that
spanking was illegal in the US and I responded, informing you that this
simply wasn't true. Perhaps you read my post and learned that spanking
is indeed legal (grin)!

The cry babies on this NG were probably beaten because of their persistent,
difficult behavior, or because they had not too intelligent parents.

Research does indicate that education tends to be inversely correlated
with spanking. So what? Chgildren should be beaten and not object
"because they had not too intelligent parents?" Good grief, Fern. How
idiotic is this logic?

Most of them have NOT reproduced. Chris has not. (Founder of this NG--so much
of what he posts is simply theory)

Most of the "cry babies on this NG" have "NOT reproduced." What a hoot
you are, Fern. How do you know who has "reproduced?" Because Chris has
not "reproduced" you assume "Most of them have NOT reproduced."? Even
funnier is the idea that this should somehow matter. Reproduction is
necessary in order to care about children - giggle, giggle, giggle!
People who reproduce automatically become child hitting machines because
they have reproduced - giggle, giggle, giggle - I can't take more
giggles on a Friday afternoon!

I wonder if he ever talks to his Mom and it appears his Dad disappeared.

You know nothing about Chris's life, but what difference would it make
it he talks to his mother or if his father disappeared? Does this mean
he has no reason to care about the treatment of little children?

Sad.....

Yes, it is sad. It is sad that there are people in the world who think
hitting and hurting little children in the name of discipline is
acceptable. It is sad that there are individuals who think only
physical reproduction gives someone a right to care about the lives of
children. It is sad that people lie in a vain attempt to make points
for their personal child hitting agenda. You are correct, Fern, it is sad.

And it's also sad if Chris doesn't talk to his mother and it is sad if
his father disappeared. It's sad when parents behave in ways that
disrupt the bond one should have in one's family. It's sad when adult
children feel the only way to emotionally survive is to cut ties with
their family due to how they were treated as children.

Your post is a giggle, a hoot, and painful, all at the same time.

LaVonne

Greg,

I'm not an atheist and believe strongly in respectful treatment of
children. I believe respectful treatment or children does NOT include
physical assault. Raising a hand (with or without an implement) is
physical assault when the victim is over the age of 18. The only
exception is fear for one's life.

Fear a lot of 30 pound toddlers, Greg? Actually, I suspect you do. And
the only way you know to parent is by hitting.

Read the NT. You may receive a better Biblical perspective.

LaVonne



Greg Hanson wrote:

I did not know that one is automatically
pro-family by the simple expedient of
being a pro-spanking compulsive.


Do you suppose your ATHEISM has any
connection to your pro-gay stance or
your reference to parents as
"bio reproduction units or as the gays
refer to them derisively, "breeders"?

A pure coincidence, no doubt!

LaVonne:
You stated you are not an atheist,
but you didn't deny anything about
gayness. Was that a signal?

Are you a member of the man haters club?

On 26 Apr 2004 09:43:00 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

LaVonne:
You stated you are not an atheist,
but you didn't deny anything about
gayness. Was that a signal?

You have made it clear you are a Christian. But you haven't said
anything about gayness other than some homophobic babble.

Was that a signal that you are a latent homoerotic wannabee?

Are you a member of the man haters club?

Are you a member of the queer, female, girlchild and g'ma hater's
club?

Kane