If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
A latter day Much Ado About Nothing might adequately describe the
situation. Only, this play would be a tragedy and all the scheming would result in ruination of the very thing they proposed to save. Another appropriate title might be Don't Mess with Mother Nature. This would be the story of a small group of social scientists obsessed with creating families they could have power over. As with Dr. Frankenstein, their brilliant minds would get the better of them and the emotionally malformed children would be nothing like they envisioned. In time, quite naturally, the creatures of their creation reject their creators and return to the old ways of doing things. The social scientists would be remembered as ogres and monsters in stories told to future generations of children. The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Opinions wrote:
A latter day Much Ado About Nothing might adequately describe the situation. Only, this play would be a tragedy and all the scheming would result in ruination of the very thing they proposed to save. Another appropriate title might be Don't Mess with Mother Nature. This would be the story of a small group of social scientists obsessed with creating families they could have power over. As with Dr. Frankenstein, their brilliant minds would get the better of them and the emotionally malformed children would be nothing like they envisioned. In time, quite naturally, the creatures of their creation reject their creators and return to the old ways of doing things. The social scientists would be remembered as ogres and monsters in stories told to future generations of children. The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! Children who are raised using other methods of teaching and discipline do far better then spanked children. Mental health practitioners rarely find children in their practices that were not spanked, and those are children with psychiatric (physiological abnormalities) problems. Spankers are so desperate that they, like lil 'o' just make up this crap to try and support a failing agenda. We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. The only place left to reduce this horrendous insult to children be assault and refusal to admit what it is, is in the home. Spanking is the rotten core of families and societies that do not work. Nation after nation has outlawed the practice. In the US state after state takes paddling from the school house. Still we have tortured children, dependent on parents, with NO recourse against the pain and humiliation but to act up and act out further when the chance arises, often against themselves and later against society. More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child. Kane -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote: We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994! http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR! Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. Oops! More lies: * There have been substantial and significant increases in the incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence study was conducted in 1986. * Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2. This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986. * Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled, sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2 levels. * The total number of children seriously injured and the total number endangered both quadrupled during this time. Source: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national Doan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Opinions wrote: (snip_ The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. There is nothing extensive or expensive about discipline without spanking. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Many, many countries have banned the practice of disciplinary spanking children. Public approval of disciplinary spanking of children in the USA is declining, as is the practice. Professional organizations of child psychologists and pediatricians have drafted position statements denouncing the practice. Things are changing, and your above paragraph is nothing but denial of reality. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. Really? I this why decades of research reveals no short-term benefits over positive alternatives to spanking, and why longitudinal research consistently identifies statistically significant association between spanking and negative long-term variables? This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! Hitting and hurting children in the name of discipline has nothing to do with "the natural order of things." Other countries have successfully banned corporal punishment, including spanking children, and the USA is moving in that direction. LaVonne |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
You said in all, Kane, when you said " More and more research confirms
what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child." LaVonne 0:- wrote: Opinions wrote: A latter day Much Ado About Nothing might adequately describe the situation. Only, this play would be a tragedy and all the scheming would result in ruination of the very thing they proposed to save. Another appropriate title might be Don't Mess with Mother Nature. This would be the story of a small group of social scientists obsessed with creating families they could have power over. As with Dr. Frankenstein, their brilliant minds would get the better of them and the emotionally malformed children would be nothing like they envisioned. In time, quite naturally, the creatures of their creation reject their creators and return to the old ways of doing things. The social scientists would be remembered as ogres and monsters in stories told to future generations of children. The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! Children who are raised using other methods of teaching and discipline do far better then spanked children. Mental health practitioners rarely find children in their practices that were not spanked, and those are children with psychiatric (physiological abnormalities) problems. Spankers are so desperate that they, like lil 'o' just make up this crap to try and support a failing agenda. We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. The only place left to reduce this horrendous insult to children be assault and refusal to admit what it is, is in the home. Spanking is the rotten core of families and societies that do not work. Nation after nation has outlawed the practice. In the US state after state takes paddling from the school house. Still we have tortured children, dependent on parents, with NO recourse against the pain and humiliation but to act up and act out further when the chance arises, often against themselves and later against society. More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child. Kane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Let me guess. According to you, a police striking you with his baton is not assault but a parent spanking a child is, right? ;-) Doan On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote: You said in all, Kane, when you said " More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child." LaVonne 0:- wrote: Opinions wrote: A latter day Much Ado About Nothing might adequately describe the situation. Only, this play would be a tragedy and all the scheming would result in ruination of the very thing they proposed to save. Another appropriate title might be Don't Mess with Mother Nature. This would be the story of a small group of social scientists obsessed with creating families they could have power over. As with Dr. Frankenstein, their brilliant minds would get the better of them and the emotionally malformed children would be nothing like they envisioned. In time, quite naturally, the creatures of their creation reject their creators and return to the old ways of doing things. The social scientists would be remembered as ogres and monsters in stories told to future generations of children. The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! Children who are raised using other methods of teaching and discipline do far better then spanked children. Mental health practitioners rarely find children in their practices that were not spanked, and those are children with psychiatric (physiological abnormalities) problems. Spankers are so desperate that they, like lil 'o' just make up this crap to try and support a failing agenda. We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. The only place left to reduce this horrendous insult to children be assault and refusal to admit what it is, is in the home. Spanking is the rotten core of families and societies that do not work. Nation after nation has outlawed the practice. In the US state after state takes paddling from the school house. Still we have tortured children, dependent on parents, with NO recourse against the pain and humiliation but to act up and act out further when the chance arises, often against themselves and later against society. More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child. Kane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote: We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994! A slight upward trend in an overall downward decline since 1973. Like I said, 3 decades. Downward. Use the entire span. Now you are OBVIOUSLY lying, as no one in their right mind could miss the entire chart end to end from 30 years back.. Or could you be THIS stupid? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR! Apparently you can't read charts, either. Check what I actually said and what the chart shows. It did NOT rise to previous levels and that was part of a continuing downward trend. Just how stupid ARE you Doan. Starting in 1973 about 44 per 1000, in 1981 a slight rise to 46, with dips along the way. 86 a dip to 41, then a short sharp increase in 91, close to the 81 levels, and a steep decline from there to 2004 of only about 20 per thousand. This does not include children under 12 either. Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. You notice I said "trend" and not 30 years. Oops! More lies: Yes, you certainly don't ever run out of them. This is NOT a rate chart and includes abuses that are NOT violent crimes. * There have been substantial and significant increases in the incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence study was conducted in 1986. Where's the rate per K? * Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2. This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986. Neglect is not a "violent crime" for data collection purposes. You are in my field of expertise, Doan. And wrong. * Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled, sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2 levels. Emotional abuse is not listed as a violent crime anywhere. Nor is neglect. * The total number of children seriously injured and the total number endangered both quadrupled during this time. Notice it says total number seriously injured? I said abuse. And abuse is more than just serious injury. Just how stupid are you. With out the rate this means little. Source: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national Rates, dummy. Rates. Here is the 12 - 17 age violent crime victim rates. There is a current upswing. Cause unknown at this time. I suspect changes in reporting method....just as the DOJ chart you offered shows...they have switched over during this time period and are mixing two methods. http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp "Child stats" is drawing their figures from FBI-DOJ data. "According to reports by victims, in 2003 the serious violent crime offending rate was 15 crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17, totaling 375,000 such crimes involving juveniles. While this is higher than the rate in 2002, it is a 71 percent drop from the 1993 peak." http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/i...timization.cfm "Violent Crime Victimization View as PDF (Best for Printing) Headline Violent crime victimization among adolescents has declined by more than half since the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, the victimization rate declined for adolescents ages 12 to 15 from 118.6 per 1,000 to 49.7 per 1,000. For youth ages 16 to 19, the rate declined from 123.9 per 1,000 to 45.9 per 1,000. (See Figure 1) " There some nice breakouts that do indeed strongly support my claim that something significant are happen in the lives of these children that is reducing violence rates so drastically. I contend it's more and more children being treated respectfully. In fact the teens being point out here would be among the first beneficiaries of the reduction in school paddlings starting many years back. And those NUMBERS of child abuse victims you want to count..... http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm "More than 60 percent of child victims experience neglect. Almost 20 percent are physically abused; 10 percent are sexually abused. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children & Families, Child Maltreatment 2002 — 2004)" So you have to reduce the NUMBER by 60%, hysterical dancing screeching monkeyboy. Doan Next stupid claim please. -0:- -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Another real difficulty is the increasing tendency to downgrade certain
crimes to delude the public into think that the "authorities" have everything under control. The goal is to make the statistics look good. The game is to protect the pension rather than protecting the public. Doan wrote: On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote: We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994! http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR! Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. Oops! More lies: * There have been substantial and significant increases in the incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence study was conducted in 1986. * Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2. This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986. * Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled, sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2 levels. * The total number of children seriously injured and the total number endangered both quadrupled during this time. Source: http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national Doan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
Doan wrote:
Let me guess. According to you, a police striking you with his baton is not assault but a parent spanking a child is, right? ;-) I don't know if LaVonne reads your posts or they are filtered, but she reads mine most likely, so I'll be happy to answer. This have been explained so many times to you it feels like endlessly. One - people do NOT generally spank to subdue or in self defense against an attacking fighting child. Spankers seem to universally claim they are responsible and use it to "TEACH." 1.2 IF a parent used hitting for self protection and to subdue and attacking child, it would be a teen and they might well BE CHARGED with assault and have to go to court to beat the charges. They might succeed. I had children in may care at one time, adolescent boys, that did in fact, end up in jail for physical fights with their parents. The parents weren't charged. Two - police officers are breaking the law if they use any weapon of any kind, including fists and feet, to "teach or punish" someone. They may only use force for self defense or defense of others and to subdue, that is, bring under control, a perpetrator or arrestee. Now give us some more of your stupid lies about police batons. Parent or police, misuse of their authority is illegal. And shortly, as in other countries, and some schools in the US, you will see this become illegal as well. Spanking cannot be done without "striking" a child. Striking an adult is assault. There is NO difference in this issue (unlike sex, you smart ass) between the pain an adult feels and that a child feels...though it's likely MORE for a child. You are a proponent of assault children. If you ever do it hope you end up in jail with inmates that have in fact been assaulted by parents. Might finally wake you up, child. Kane Doan On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Carlson LaVonne wrote: You said in all, Kane, when you said " More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child." LaVonne 0:- wrote: Opinions wrote: A latter day Much Ado About Nothing might adequately describe the situation. Only, this play would be a tragedy and all the scheming would result in ruination of the very thing they proposed to save. Another appropriate title might be Don't Mess with Mother Nature. This would be the story of a small group of social scientists obsessed with creating families they could have power over. As with Dr. Frankenstein, their brilliant minds would get the better of them and the emotionally malformed children would be nothing like they envisioned. In time, quite naturally, the creatures of their creation reject their creators and return to the old ways of doing things. The social scientists would be remembered as ogres and monsters in stories told to future generations of children. The twin factors that will eventually destroy no-spank are its heavy reliance on rules and laws to make parents conform to the dictates of a few esoteric eccentrics. The new rules then require extensive and expensive alternatives that consume an inordinate amount of resources in proportion to the results achieved. Unlike ages old laws prohibiting murder, on which most people have agreed over time, there is nothing approaching a consensus on no-spank despite a mountain of propaganda declaring spanking to be evil. Instead of linear progress in no-spank, the results more closely resemble a logarithmic curve that flattens as it climbs. Much like parents who spanks too much, the no-spank agenda has reached the point of diminishing returns. Even enormous efforts yield very little results. In some cases, as with vitriolic no-spanks, the results are even counterproductive. This is the fate of those who try to mess with the natural order of things. They usually expend a great deal of energy and leave behind a disaster! Children who are raised using other methods of teaching and discipline do far better then spanked children. Mental health practitioners rarely find children in their practices that were not spanked, and those are children with psychiatric (physiological abnormalities) problems. Spankers are so desperate that they, like lil 'o' just make up this crap to try and support a failing agenda. We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent victimization. Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend. The only place left to reduce this horrendous insult to children be assault and refusal to admit what it is, is in the home. Spanking is the rotten core of families and societies that do not work. Nation after nation has outlawed the practice. In the US state after state takes paddling from the school house. Still we have tortured children, dependent on parents, with NO recourse against the pain and humiliation but to act up and act out further when the chance arises, often against themselves and later against society. More and more research confirms what we've always known, and why we have laws against assault. Assault is destructive of a society. Whether the victim is an adult or a child. Kane -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What makes no-spank so unstable?
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote: You are a proponent of assault children. If you ever do it hope you end up in jail with inmates that have in fact been assaulted by parents. Might finally wake you up, child. Kane Hahaha! You were the one that ADMITTED to assaulting your kid! Doan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr. Dobson again. | 0:-> | Spanking | 12 | January 24th 06 10:02 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... | Kane | General | 2 | December 6th 03 03:28 AM |