Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right?

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make
that determination. Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse. Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!.

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.
In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Doan

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not
seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply
to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I
will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to
death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a
determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right?

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it
depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.



In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard
against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt
to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care
less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse
will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation
should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children.

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make
that determination.

I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any
damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to
be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their
psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged.


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.


So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation.
But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse
has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages.


Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?



Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same
thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should
work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children.
NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am
interested in the wellbeing of kids.

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it
becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made
which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is
in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you
are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the
pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.



It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present,
completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it. Let;s take an
extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is:

- beaten
- made to drink ammonia
- banished to live in the garage
- knifed and left for dead

all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no
one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy
NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage?
Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one
ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and
psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. The
question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is
damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless
spanking and spirit busting abuse?

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that
you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!.



No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument ridiculous. If a
philosopher says:

"I think, therefore I am."

And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's
assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity?

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post.
So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to
use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.


Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed
opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of
legislation nad criminal enforcement. Presumably, a parent has a higher goal
than failing to get arrested for child abuse.

In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)



I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those
bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view. Therefore
the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think
is likely true.

Doan

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not
seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply
to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I
will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to
death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a
determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right?


I see that you have no response.

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it
depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.



In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard
against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt
to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care
less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse
will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation
should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children.

But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base on
some "reasonable" standard!

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make
that determination.

I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any
damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to
be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their
psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged.

Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party!


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.


So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation.
But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse
has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages.

Legislation is just one example. The reason legislation came about is
because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that child
abuse is bad.


Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?



Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same
thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should
work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children.
NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am
interested in the wellbeing of kids.

Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard?

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it
becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made
which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is
in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you
are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the
pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.



It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present,
completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it.

But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present?

Let;s take an
extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is:

Extreme example is never very good but I'll play along with you.

- beaten
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- made to drink ammonia
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- banished to live in the garage
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- knifed and left for dead

Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no
one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy
NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage?

So WHO determine the damage in this case?

Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one
ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and
psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers.

How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard?

The
question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is
damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless
spanking and spirit busting abuse?

Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else that
make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own argument.

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that
you

I just did! :-)

did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!.



No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument ridiculous. If a
philosopher says:

"I think, therefore I am."

And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's
assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity?

"I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous. The same
cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can be
the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons!

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post.
So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to
use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.


Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed
opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of
legislation nad criminal enforcement.

But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by police and
abuses by parents?

Presumably, a parent has a higher goal
than failing to get arrested for child abuse.

True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their
children. That determination still has to be based on some "reasonable"
standard.

In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither.

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)



I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those
bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view.

So I am the one that doing the ad-hom???

Therefore
the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think
is likely true.

Huh? You are not making sense here.

Doan

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:27:06 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does
not seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up
resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a
reply to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments,
I will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring
example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to
death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a
determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact
that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean
that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is
right?

No strawman. That's your speciality. You lumped them together in an
attempt to discredit her, a common behavior for bigots such as you,
and she was clarify what she doesn't believe that Steve does.

Now on what grounds WERE you lumping her together with Steve?

And why?

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess
it depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this
reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with
teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.

Yep, it's in the law. It still, as she makes clear, is NOT sufficient
to provide safety for the child. That's why I asked the question. I'd
hardly ask a question that was so obviously available, now would I.

Where is the line, precisely?

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to
make
that determination.

That's IS correct. You do get the brass ring, but there more of them.
For instance who will protect the child when the parent pretends to
know, as all DO, where that line is an crosses it?

And the child DOES indicate the know they have taken an injury. They
signify by their behavior. I'll accept the child's perception. Since
it's the one that actually counts, not the parents bovine exrcrement
attempt to justify using pain and pretending it's parenting.

Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.

Yep. And probably for very good reasons. You worried are yah?

Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied.

You are dreaming. A child that is close to her parents emotionally
has a very difficult time lying to them, often failing to even when
they try. You know nothing about un spanked unpunished children. They
cherish their parents as they are obviously cherished. It's on the
beaten that turn on their parents.

Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children?

Nope. They usually collect other evidence.

We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?

No. Why would you think that some of the 98% who are spanked would be
missing from that group. They are easily confused because adult
behavior of spankers confuses them.

Children raised with more than lip service they are loved, that is
with constant demonstration of it, are very hard to fool.

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it
becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter.
An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be
made which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is
the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The
proof is in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if
you are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the
pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.

You are full of baloney. YOU make such metaphorical connects and far
more innacurate to the facts. Police and batons to parents and
spanking...your logic is peckable.

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe
that you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it
does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE
ABOVE!.

It was a perfectly useful metaphor for the point she was making, not
something you tried to twist the meaning into.

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates
your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another
post. So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can
try to use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a
parent
can be abusive.

Yep.

But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.
In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision
whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

Which is NOT the answer to The Question, the subject of your debate
now. I clearly asked for a standard line that could be identified
BEFORE being crossed and all your answers and your analogies depend on
the offense having been committed first, so one has lookback....oddly,
that doesn't even say where the line was, just that it was crossed.

It's like a no-tresspassing sign that is obscure. Sure it's there but
it can't be seen.

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a
doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

She's got you pegged to a tee, though she hasn't seen through you
sufficently to know you are a coward and liar as well as a nutcase.

I understand you wish to debate Embry with me. I have a time limit.
I've decided that I am not going to let you decide when unilaterally.

I've volunteered many times to debate you, even to participate with
you in some clarification of your challenges to me, but you have
choked every time.

You have a week. The morning of February 25th if you do not have all
your ducks in a row, answer The Question the only way I asked for it
to be answered, or simply admit you cannot answer it, clear the
"never-spanked" claim you make about me, and prove beyond a doubt you
have the Embry study, then I'll know you have been bluffing all along
and have and never had any intention of honest debate and were just
"having fun."

When you can't make up your own mind, Droany, it gets made up for you.

And I'll announce from that day forward you are a coward, a liar, and
you RAN.

Because you are and you did.

And no, Nothing you can do after that time will engage me to discuss
any of the questions at issue. You'll have to come up with some new
entertainment and pretend you are honest.

Then I'll run you over the jumps again.

And feel free to put me on a reasonable limit time line for any
challenges I make to YOU and fail to come up with the answer or
information, and cut me off.

Won't bother me at all. I don't play at dragging things out waiting
for people to forget what I said or did. YOU do.

Doan

Kane

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:21:07 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He
does not
seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up
resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though.
:-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you
in a reply
to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my
arguments, I
will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you
as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring
example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of
abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing
infants to
death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a
determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The
fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not
mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is
right?


I see that you have no response.

I did. You are full of baloney...it was about lumping her with someone
that has such an opinion, and not clarifying which similar trait you
believe they have...she was only clarifying for you who wishes to fog.

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I
guess it
depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this
reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned
with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.



In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a
standard
against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators
would attempt
to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could
not care
less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined
as abuse
will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this
legislation
should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of
children.

But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base
on
some "reasonable" standard!

The "reasonable standard" is about harm, not the line of demarcation.

If you have found a line of demarcation defined in legislation,
between legal nonabusive CP, and abusive injury, please perform the
public service I've asked of you and reveal it to those of us unable
to locate that legislation.

There's a good boy and thanks. Praise be to Droany.



But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child
can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature
to make
that determination.

I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of
any
damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for
damage to
be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking
about their
psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged.

Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party!

No actually many children grow up to understand they were abused. In
fact there is a small but growing vocal group doing just that.

Even elderly ladies finally coming to grips with having been sexually
abused as children and never letting themselves think about it.


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.


So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about
legislation.
But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of
abuse
has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking
damages.

Legislation is just one example. The reason legislation came about is
because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that
child
abuse is bad.

Yep. After the fact.

there is no legislation that tells where the line is...just what NOT
to do, and what injuries not to do. And NO line on CP.

The only way to be sure one will not abuse in the use of CP is to
simply not use it.

Unless of course one knows precisely where that line is.

You tell'em Droany.

I'm busy telling them the easiest way out...just don't use CP. Nothing
to it.




Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you
think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles
where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we
have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were
manipulated
by the "experts"?



Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing
the same
thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law
should
work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for
children.
NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids.
I am
interested in the wellbeing of kids.

Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard?

Not crossing the line into injury. Pretty simple eh? You establish
where the line is, and tell the parents, and I'll establish that they
need never even go down the path of CP so the line will be of no
consequence to parenting safely.

Don't use CP and you never have to guess. Use CP, and any honest
person will have to admit there is a risk of crossing the line, and
you won't know until you have. Because it can't be charted accurately.

But Droany will tell us, someday, maybe. If he's through having fun.

Until then he'll dodge.

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough,
it
becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes
butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be
made
which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because
it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The
proof is
in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So
if you
are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in
the
pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.



It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present,
completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it.

But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present?

No, actually that is NOT the problem in determining the limit: the
line that must not be crossed.

It is an aside you are most happy to be fallaciously debating as you
avoid The Simple Question.

Let;s take an
extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy
is:

Extreme example is never very good but I'll play along with you.

So the cop and baton isn't an extreme example then...or are you
willing to admit it is not very good?

- beaten
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

not the line


- made to drink ammonia
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

not the line

- banished to live in the garage
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

Not the line

- knifed and left for dead

Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

Yep. And where is the line where the mother should have stopped?
Obviously she has some interest in "punishment." And in extreme
punishment....a perfect candidate, if she were humane and loving, for
the answer to The Simple Question: Where is the line that must not be
crossed, not where was it after you destroyed the child...where must
you stop?

all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument,
that no
one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is
the boy
NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the
damage?

So WHO determine the damage in this case?

The boy knows he's damaged, obviously, but no one else is. That is a
perfect anology that you are in denial about and busy trying, as is
your way, to twist into something it is not. It does NOT show where
the line is.

And it is YOUR argument thrown back at you concerning The Question..

Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and
no one
ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and
psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his
mothers.

How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard?

The questions isn't is he damaged, but what punishments could have
been administered that would NOT have damaged him....that would
require there to be a LINE. YOU cannot locate that line. Admit it.

You are still arguing the extremes which is unarguable. the strawman
ploy and fallacious argument. No one but you is interested in the
argument of extremes, just show us the line I asked for, and the
poster is trying to pound into your little pointy head.

The
question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express
what is
damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between
harmless
spanking and spirit busting abuse?

Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else
that
make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own
argument.

Nope. Not in the least. The child experiences the damage, just is
unable to assess it. That does not refute the damage, now does it?

Well, maybe to you it does.

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I
believe that
you

I just did! :-)

You just twisted and dodged. That's not winning....well, to you maybe.
That seems to be about all you've ever done. She isn't arguing the
child can act in their own behalf, only that they can be damaged.


did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere,
it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE
ABOVE!.



No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument
ridiculous. If a
philosopher says:

"I think, therefore I am."

And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the
philosopher's
assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own
incredulity?

"I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous.

Again a dodge. You ignore the fact she is pointing out that you claim
she is wrong because you don't want to accept her right to have an
opinion in this matter NOT based on law but on probable or possible
damage.

In some states it is legal, and case law proves it, to damage a child
with a spanking. Doesn't make it okay....oh wait....to you maybe.

The same
cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can
be
the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons!

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow
illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in
another post.
So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you
can try to
use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a
parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable"
standard.


Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no
formed
opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake
of
legislation nad criminal enforcement.

But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by
police and
abuses by parents?

That's not the question being asked. There are no laws against
spanking, and even some very brutal kinds of spanking in some states
is allowed.

The same behavior by a cop, even what would be a mild spanking, would
be illegal.

Presumably, a parent has a higher goal
than failing to get arrested for child abuse.

True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their
children. That determination still has to be based on some
"reasonable"
standard.

In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision
whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither.

And that wasn't her argument. How long are you going to play at "it's
a cop and CPS solution" after she's told you that parents should be
expect to parent with more in mind than avoiding being arrested?

Hmmm...maybe I'll take that back. YOU DO think parents should parent
in ways that inflict harm on children but won't fall under the limits
set by law, don't you?

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a
doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)



I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument
adhominem? Those
bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view.

So I am the one that doing the ad-hom???

Yes, you do it all the time.


Therefore
the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which
I think
is likely true.

Huh? You are not making sense here.

Still can't read english eh? Or just pretending. She was making an
assumption of YOUR opinion pseudo-quote.

As though you had said, "you an steve"

That help a little? Do you need a rest after a long hour of dodging
and weaving and NOT responded to what she said but to what you claim
she said?


Doan

Doan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Doan wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message

Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
-----------------
It is the Truth! We cannot let you perps decide any such thing, EVER!

LOL! Who are "We"?
------------------
The counsel of the truthful.


Is this "Truth" the stuff that came out of your
ass-hole...I mean mouth? ;-)
--------------------
MY mouth.
YOU'RE the only asshole.


Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants
to death and claiming that it is ok.
-----------------
No, you don't have any such thing, you're a ****-****ing liar.

LOL. Since **** is coming out of your mouth, a "****-****ing" liar
would be ****ing your mouth! :-)
---------------------
You're the ****, your mouth is the asshole, you're doing it again.


Do you think a baby can make a determination
of what abuse is???
Doan
-----------------
Of course. Anything that makes a child cry IS abuse! Period!
Steve

I told you he is a troll! ;-)
Doan
-----------------------
That is the God's Truth, you abyssmal piece of ****!
Steve

Stephanie Stowe wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Stephanie and Tim wrote:

My interest in arguing with him is very diminished. He does not seem
too
bright.

As I expected, you can't argue on facts and ended up resorting to
ad-hom.
I am really disappointed. Nice chatting with you though. :-)

Regards,

Doan


I was not actually talking to you. I was referring to you in a reply to
Kane. As soon as you offer a refutation of one of my arguments, I will
be
pleased to resume coversing with you.

S
Let's me see if I get this right. If I were to refer to you as a
"smelly-****" in a reply to Kane, that somehow make it OK???

Your arguments have been refuted, over and over. A glaring example is
your argument that only the victim can be the arbiter of abuse.
Otherwise, you could have nut-cases like Steve abusing infants to death
and claiming that it is ok. Do you think a baby can make a determination
of what abuse is???

Doan



Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases. But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them. Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)
- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)
- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

S
------------
Nope, you missed it. I'm not at all crazy. I'm MORAL!
There are few people who are genuinely moral.

Infanticide of very early newborn who have not yet grown a mind is
not the killing of an existent being, because self-existence requires
a mind. Torture of an infant you then permit to grow a mind, however,
is a crime against all of humanity, and should be punished by death
by prolonged public torture, because they let a being come into
existence in a body that they have harmed neurologically. If you
would harm a pre-mental human body, then kill it and be blameless,
else you incur the holy wrath of the Infinite by stealing from one
who is to Exist.

After a Person Exists, That Person is the Ultimate Arbiter of its
victimization, and no one has the right to subsume that judgement
before God!
Steve

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:

Don't lump me with someone else based on characterization. The fact that
both Steve and I belive that hitting kids is wrong does not mean that we
agree that infanticide is right. I most certainly do not.

Strawman again. Where did I say that you believe infanticide is right?

So let's review the business about what determines abuse. I guess it depends
on what the fear outcome of abuse is. One would need this reasonable
agreement you are discussing if one were primarily concerned with teh
legislation and prosecution of abuse cases.

So we agreed that there is a "reasonable" standard.

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make
that determination.
---------------------
NEVER, its reaction at that point *IS* its very Well-Being!!
While there are other considerations, the child IS the arbiter
of whether you are a criminal!!!


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.
---------------------------
ANY child who is mad at a parent *IS* correct in their judgement!
PERIOD! There can be NO "false" accusation of abuse in the heart
of a child!


Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied.
---------------------------
A child can be browbeaten into confusion and self-hatred, but again,
this is merely a form of abuse itself, and in their deepest heart
they do indeed know their abusers!! The child MUSt be given the
credence at every instant that their judgment of their captors is
the one that is relevant to the moral value of their treatment!!


Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children?
----------------------
Given the time to get what the child wants to say, yes.


We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?
-------------------------------
The experts were themselves abusers, they should have been jailed
along with their alleged abusers until the children were permitted
to figure out for themselves what had really happened in an atmosphere
where were given Authority and where they were regarded as the only
source of Truth, even if that took YEARS!


Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.
------------------------
Nope, the cream makes it by the process of cause and effect.
Likewise for children, if you anger children, you fully deserve
their wrath! ONLY if they are convinced that you are innocent
ARE YOU ACTUALLY INNOCENT!!


I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!.
---------------------------
Nonsense.


- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post. So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.
In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.
----------------------------
Any police officer who does not exceed his authority or use force
where unneeded will be found at fault. All they do is intercede to
protect a possible victim, and possible is all it needs to be for
proper probable cause.
Steve

Stephanie Stowe wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message

In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard
against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt
to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care
less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse
will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation
should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children.

But if one is primarily
concerned with the wellbeing of the child, then only the child can
"determine" what consitutes that which damages them.

Wrong again! First, the child can be too young or too immature to make
that determination.

I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any
damage done.
---------------------------
Don't be stupid, of course they will, or else there isn't any.


But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to
be done.
---------------------------
Nonsense. A child may not identify "damage" by specific name, but
they react in a harmed manner, and if encouraged to trust their
feelings they can conclude whether they were harmed or not and
by what agency!


Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their
psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged.
----------------------------------
Actually, the do, and little else. A child who has been harmed in
their own estimation dwells on it and ponders their abuse to a
degree that hamstrings them from other creative endeavor for quite
some time.


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.

So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation.
But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse
has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages.
---------------------------------
The spanker is terrified that his victims will reveal his abuse of
them, and ruin his "fun".


Third, the child can be too intimate
with the parents that, in case of real abuse, lied. Do you think
a CPS worker can make a determination of abuse by just asking the
children? We had the famous McMartin case here in Los Angeles where
the children really believed that they were abused. Should we have
just thrown the adults in jail because these kids were manipulated
by the "experts"?

Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same
thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should
work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children.
NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am
interested in the wellbeing of kids.

Let;s take an anolgy.
Have you ever made whipped cream? If you beat the cream enough, it
becomes
lovely whipped cream. If you whip it too much, it becomes butter. An
arbitrary standard of how much whipping is to be done cannot be made
which
ensure properly whipped cream to top yummy apale pie. Because it is the
RESULT of properly whipped cream which is the determinant. The proof is
in
the pudding, so to speak. (Well in this case in the cream.) So if you
are
talking about raising an unharmed child, again, the proof is in the
pudding,
and that is whether or not the child is harmed.

False analogy! The cream cannot make any determination; that
determination is made by a THIRD party.

It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present,
completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it. Let;s take an
extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is:

- beaten
- made to drink ammonia
- banished to live in the garage
- knifed and left for dead

all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no
one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy
NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage?
Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one
ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and
psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers. The
question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is
damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless
spanking and spirit busting abuse?
--------------------------------
There is no such thing as "harmless spanking".
The child ALWAYS, if only secretly in their heart of hearts, knows
that the abuse done to them was WRONG!!
Steve


I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that
you
did effectively this:

- You can't be serious. (While your incredulity may be sincere, it does
nothing to refute the argument.)

It showed the ridiculouas nature of your argument - LIKE THE ONE ABOVE!.


No it does not. It merely shows that YOU find the argument ridiculous. If a
philosopher says:

"I think, therefore I am."

And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's
assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity?

- What about a police officer. (If this analogy somehow illucidates your
point, I failed to see it as I countered your argument in another post.
So
if this analogy can be explained in more detail, perhaps you can try to
use
this as a refutation. But I am not holding my breath.)

It is a fit analogy! The police officer can be abusive just as a parent
can be abusive. But to prove abuse, there has to a "reasonable" standard.

Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed
opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of
legislation nad criminal enforcement. Presumably, a parent has a higher goal
than failing to get arrested for child abuse.

In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

- You and Steve are both crazy. (Again, this is true beyond a doubt. But
again, it does nothing to refute the argument.)

Ad-hom again. Nice chatting with you though. :-)


I called myself and Steve crazy. How can that be argument adhominem? Those
bullet items were parroting you, pretending your point of view. Therefore
the "you" refers actually to ME. I was calling MYSELF crazy, which I think
is likely true.

Doan wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:

In order to legislate something, one would have to come up with a standard
against which cases can be applied. Presumably the legislators would attempt
to use reason to the creation of said standard. Personally, I could not care
less about the legislation angle. Some form of whatever is defined as abuse
will be legislated. I do not have a great opinion on how this legislation
should be handled. I am attempting to discuss the wellbeing of children.

But "wellbeing of children" based on what? You see, it has to base on
some "reasonable" standard!
-----------------------------
It's based on the well-being of children, of course. That you imagine
that there is no reasonable standard for that in the heart of each
child, and in the hearts of adults who are not criminals, this only
reveals that you are a disturbed criminal!!! It means you don't think
that God is watching you, and that you can get away with your sick
"fun" if you can confuse your victims or the rest of us.


I agree. The child, herself, will likely not even be cogniscent of any
damage done. But a child needn't be aware that damage is done for damage to
be done. Kids who are sexually abused do not sit around thinking about their
psychological well being and how badly they are being damaged.
------------------
Nonsense, the child knows inside, even if they were made to fear
telling.


Exactly! That is why abuse has to be determine by a third party!
-------------------------------
No, merely revealed courtesy of the child's defender who gives the
child safety in which to admit whom it is they know has harmed them.


Second, the child can be mad at the parents and
make false accusation of abuse.


So? Are we talking about legislation again? I do not care about legislation.
But I do wonder what a child's ability to make false accusations of abuse
has to do with spanking kids and whether or not said spanking damages.

Legislation is just one example. The reason legislation came about is
because it has been determined by some "reasonable" standard that child
abuse is bad.
-----------------
You're assuming that something vicious and horrible should be done to
people as children to "civilize them", and that any children who go
without being abused are inherently BAD!

There is NO ACTUAL evidence for ANY such thing in all of psychology,
that is a nothing but a sick guilt/shame-based suspicion common to
damaged people who have been severely abused as a rationalization for
their parents or caregivers criminal abuse whereby the child tries to
prove that what was done them was "out of love", no matter how
horrible.

It is the adult-child/perp's final effort as a sick adult to prove to
themselves that everything evil that was done to them was their own
fault for "being bad".

Abuse of their own child as the next new victim is only the perp's
final desperate effort to prove to themselves that their abuser
"actually only" severely abused them "because they loved them".

Everyone who has not been damaged by abuse knows that abuse is wrong.
That YOU don't know is merely evidence that you're severely damaged.


Well, this could explain a thing or two. You and I are not arguing the same
thing at all. I have no formed opinion on how child protection law should
work. My entire posting sequence has been about what is best for children.
NOT what we should base legislation on. I am a poster on misc.kids. I am
interested in the wellbeing of kids.

Again, wellbeing of kids base on what standard?
-----------------------
The result in the heart of the victim is the only standard that God
requires to find you GUILTY! The victim is the ONLY RIGHTFUL ARBITER
of their own victimization! THEY AND ONLY THEY are fit to judge you!


It is not a false analogy. The damage either is or is not present,
completely in the absence of a third party to recognize it.

But the problem is who determines whether it is or it is not present?
----------------------------
Damage, in the heart, is EXACTLY THE SAME as perceived damage. There
is NO DIFFERENCE! This is WHY the victim is the only fair and final
arbiter of whether what you did to them was CRIME or not.


Let;s take an
extreme example. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a young boy is:

Extreme example is never very good but I'll play along with you.

- beaten
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- made to drink ammonia
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- banished to live in the garage
Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

- knifed and left for dead

Already determined by every "reasonable" person as bad.

all by his mother. Let us further assume, for the sake of argument, that no
one ever finds out that this mother is doing this to this boy. Is the boy
NOT damaged simply by the absence of someone's observation of the damage?

So WHO determine the damage in this case?
-----------------
The child first, and then everyone who has ever been a child.


Even if this mythical boy were never allowed out of the garage, and no one
ever found out about his situation, he would sit be physically and
psychologically damaged by the treatment at the hands of his mothers.

How do you know? Is it not by some "reasonable" standard?
--------------------
We all know how we would feel, and you do too, if you would give
up your attempt to relabel YOUR abusers as GOOD and admit that
you HATE them for what they did to you! Your problem is that
you won't hate your own abusers, you would be giving up your
desperate need to feel you had been loved in this life to do so,
and you can't dare ever take the chance! But your twistedness
is obvious, everyone can see it, and that you're harmed!


The
question is, since the child cannot necessarily discern or express what is
damaging to herself, where can one safely draw the line between harmless
spanking and spirit busting abuse?

Exactly, since the child cannot discern, it has to be somebody else that
make that discernation! Seem like you just refuted your own argument.
-----------------------------
The child can discern given time, they simply need the safety that
the outer authority of the society can afford them, by removing them
from their abuser.


I do not beleive that you refuted this argument at all. I believe that
you

I just did! :-)
------------------
No, you just effectively asked why YOU YOURSELF had never identified
your OWN abusers and admitted you hated them and named them as perps.
The why is because you never had that safety afforded to you.


And I say, "You can't be serious!?!!?" Have I shown that the philosopher's
assertyion is ridiculous? Or have I merely shown my own incredulity?

"I think, therefore I am." has proven to be not ridiculous. The same
cannot be said about the argument you made that ONLY the victim can be
the arbiter of abuse. Apples and lemons!
------------------------------
The Universe/Life runs by cause and effect. The child who is harmed
knows they are harmed, they KNOW what feels bad. All they have to
be permitted to do is to believe in their own judgement.


Again, I think we are arguing different things. As I say, I have no formed
opinion on what the semi-arbitrary definition of abuse for the sake of
legislation nad criminal enforcement.

But think about it, why are there legislation against abuses by police and
abuses by parents?
------------------------------------
When people entrusted with protection do the reverse, they are no
longer being protectors, they are, in effect, NOT parents, NOT police
at ALL! They must be apprehended and stopped by the REAL parents and
the REAL police, because they are merely criminal imposters!

The parents/police didn't abuse, the imposters abused, and should
be caught!!


Presumably, a parent has a higher goal
than failing to get arrested for child abuse.

True, but that doesn't mean that the parent abuse or not abuse their
children. That determination still has to be based on some "reasonable"
standard.
-----------------------
The resultant effect in the child is the ONLY reasonable standard!


In case of the police, it's often determined by a jury using the
"reasonable doubt" standard; in case of the parents, the decision whether
to remove the child is often made by a social worker using the
"reasonable" guideline set by the local CPS agency.

I see that you don't have a refutation of this neither.
------------------------------
You're pitiful, your comment is irrelevant here.
Steve