Kane is Saddened - - deeply saddened

I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would
agree upon."

Of course, trying hard not to laugh, most of you just let that sit for
awhile as he attempted to answer clarifying questions, and failed with
even a Canadian jurist in the same debacle admitted (honest and Doan
seem to be strangers) that a "reasonable" standard is NOT attainable
since no standard can be agreed upon.

Do you suppose that judge knows that while there it isn't actually
measurable?

Then Doan challenged me with a "I DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU," yet
strangly when I told to go ahead and prove his claim about my supposed
claim that I've never been spanked, he fell silent.

Around the same time, when The Question was still awaiting a
reasonable answer, and gone begging, he comes up with a challenge to
my quote of a Dennis Embry quote from a magazine article.

Doan challenges me to debate the Embry study, and claiming I didn't
have it. I, being the patient soul I am, simply agreed if he'd clear
up these to question/challenges of his and obtain his own copy of the
Embry study.

Since then he's completely avoided The Question with the strange and
inaccurate answer, "already answered." He answered "A" question I
suppose, from his vast store of made up nonsense, but he didn't
usefully (as he claims he wants parents to have) answer THE Question.

And now we have the Embry study debacle. He claims he has it, yet is
unable to answer even the simplist question to varify...instead
pretending he'll send it to anyone that asks for it. ... an no one has
popped here saying they want it, or have it from him. Odd.....

All I've asked is that he name a page with particular information on
it, not the information itself. And he chokes. And runs.

Off to engage others and do busy work on subjects long covered in
depth before.

Oh Drooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany. Oh Drooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany.

Where forth art thou Droaner?

Try the latest Nikes. Great tread I'm told. Marathon grade running
shoes.


Maybe you'll make the O'lump-hics. You ARE maintaining amateur status.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross, the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.


Anyway... Weird argument.


SNIP

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross, the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of "reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case....

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no
proof is given by you to support that! Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging. Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?


Anyway... Weird argument.

Weird indeed! :-0


Doan


SNIP

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking
and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross,
the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by
them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked
child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case....



Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from abusing
their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of the
suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power difference
in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a parent /
child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child is not a
criminal suspect.

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by
our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no
proof is given by you to support that!


No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't
harmful. The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm.


Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."


It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter of the
possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the case
with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say.

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!



OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is damaging,
would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of damage is
the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain of where
to place the line.

Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This is a
technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child might be
spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction which
could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence or
possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced.


I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up
the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that
the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got
into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to
beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of
abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!



I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates to
courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the situation
of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to apprehend
a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a threat to
society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking, loving,
caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit different
endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that you used.

That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you accept that
said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the child who
is damaged it, albeit unknowingly.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically
abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of
a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally
abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).


You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have immediat
compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work. There is a
lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select, if any.
My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of those
issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment. He is a
wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction between parent
and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute one
punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help the
child to learn SELF discipline.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment
by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?



Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument? There are studies that
demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you are quoting
are attempting to ascertain. So I cannot comment on them. I would be
interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside from one
line sentences of irrelevant analogies. It would certainly be fine if you
want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have read.



Anyway... Weird argument.

Weird indeed! :-0


Doan


SNIP

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:29:02 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more
dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not
cross, the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined
by them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of
the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the
spanked child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud,
you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case....

Using that logic there is a fundamental piece of simple fact missing
from your argument.....a parent isn't a lawyer, cop, and judge. Nor do
they have ready access to the resources, education, and experience of
same.

And a major bit of hightailing out before you had to admit you are
running.....no answer to the three questions, all responses to YOUR
challenges that you now WON'T follow up on.

You are a coward, and a liar. Dishonest too.

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly
damaged by our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy
accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when
no
proof is given by you to support that!

And YOU can provide no proof that is isn't. Notice that? Between
decideing whether or not to smack you upside the head, harmwise
outcomes considered, it really really easy to decide not to to avoid
harming you.

The law says that clearly. Why it is withheld from children for their
protection is a good support for decent and careful parenting. I don't
see huge amounts of that kind of care from parents.

Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by
our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."

You are assuming you are alright, and example of not being horribly
damaged. One of the common characteristics, while they are killing
others, raping, and otherwise behaving as though they have been
harmed, is that they don't think there is a thing wrong with them...in
fact they think there is something wrong with everyone that isn't like
them.

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!

Between hitting a child and risking some harm I cannot predict even if
I am careful to stay as far away from that oh so fuzzy line, and
simply not hitting him or her and using other NON-PUNITIVE means of
reaching my parenting goal, there is no contest.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all
parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own
informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks
to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP
question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people
would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You
bring up the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is
that the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all
got into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going
to beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility
of abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not
use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!

The police have the restraint of the courts, the training and
regulations they must following, and yet the err. If they could
enforce the law without ever having to hit would you think it okay for
them to?

Well, I've proven, as have hundred I know, and thousands I have
trained, and more that one can find by diligent search on the Web,
that have successfully parented without hitting.

You are peddling the same old oft repeated song of the spanking
compulsives that has gone on for years over in aps, and the only
reason you have for seeking out someone new and unexperienced with aps
is to escape the trap YOU built for yourself there.

You are on the run, it's plain. Only folks in miscK are unaway of it.
They won't be for long if you keep annoying them with your sick
"logic" and your weasely arguments.

You talk like a weasel, you walk like a weasel, and you smell like a
weasel. What do you think you actually are?

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not
physically abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you
are of a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not
mentally abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-)

Great logic: The only alternative to not punishing is to do nothing.

Non-spanking advocates have never to my knowledge, and I've read the
archives, suggested doing nothing, nor does this poster. You are just
having fun with her and eventually she'll get it, give up on you in
disgust and you, with your poor flabby ego temporarily pumped up, will
be able to, as you always do, claim she "ran away and wouldn't debate
me."

Since we have to do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child
calmly,

The only non-punitive one of the four. And NOT separated out for it's
results. Very very significant and ignored by you for years when
brought to your attention and will be again, is my bet.

2) Sent the child to the room,

Nominally punitive and doe NOT teach the wanted behavior the unwanted
should be replaced with. Again, one of your major thinking errors
about child rearing...and common among the dedicated spanking
compulsives.

3) Time-out

Again, nominally punitive and does NOT, despite mothers admonishement
to think about it, while she goes off for a much needed break from
children roughhousing) teach a thing to the child except don't bother
mommy for more than an hour at a time.

and 4) Removal of
privileges.

Yep. Punishment again, and again we do NOT know the variables that
could be instructive or not by their presence or absence in the
process of giving the priv removal.

They found that these "was found to have a much stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).

The fact that most kids would prefer a less than ferocious beating
kind of spanking to having three other punishments, does not prove
anything but that punishment methods are a total mess, all kinds.

This just compares punishments of one kind to punishments of another,
and ALL, except the "talking with", (which could or could not be
instructive according the content) are NOT conducive to learning
something, only how to do NOTHING, FOR THE MOMENT.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?

They haven't been tested. Why? Because they are hardly in question.
They work so well when actually done that few have bothered. In fact
parents that do spank often report far better results when they switch
to non punitive, and the child's experience of having many teachers
that do NOT spank and they learn better shows it to be pointless.

The only study in existence that was rigorously scientific social
research was Embry's and you are studiously avoiding doing the simple
thing's it takes to discuss it in debate.

On the other hand there ARE studies that you are ignoring, and some
that you have quoted from that when studied broadly, that is in
sections OTHER than you cherry pick, support more effect from both
less CP in a straight or exponential downward trend of same.

In other words, you either don't know what you read, or you are out to
deceive.

Some of both is going on from what I've seen of your many years of
posting.


Anyway... Weird argument.

Weird indeed! :-0

You deceptively challenged me and when I responded you ran.

You are running now by for one of the first times ducking out to
another ng and engaging someone on subjects long explored and laid to
rest in aps.

Why else would you be over here in miscK? Vacation?

You know the answer to The Question, and your coorespondant, even
brand new to that issue, laid it out for you honestly and rather well.
Yet stil you "have fun with" folks.

If you aren't here to debate issues let me be the first to point it
out to any new posters coming to aps. I'll keep your comments handy
and point to them if needed.

You are running, and scared. Your compulsion is surfacing in fact and
truth and that made you run faster and harder than I've ever seen you
do before. Better bail or come clean real quick, as it's becoming more
and more apparent to not only others, but I fear, to YOU.

Doan......
.......The lying cowardly weasel. Thanks mom and dad. You taught him
well.

Tah.

kane



SNIP

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:15 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:

And smacks the child's butt most thoroughly.....R R R R

Nice going Stephanie......

If you care you can google on his name and look for this cops and
batons subject....you'll see he's posted on this before and been told
pretty much, with less eloquence than yours I might add, the same
thing.

There is no comparison between cops and perps and children and
parents. Just doesn't compute for who each is and the variable
outcomes desired.

He'll keep you going though until he finds something, anything, that
you have no answer for, like why you chose one word and not another
and that that then makes you a liar...seriously, he'll do that.

It's been his posting style for years. When you wear him down through
all his garbage and fuzzy brained nonsense that will be all that is
left.

And he's come here, as I predicted he would do, in search of a time
consuming rest while he avoids actually giving the answer he knows,
and you demonstrate once again to him (dozen of folks have before)
that The Question has been answered, as unanswerable, with the same
considerations then that you offer. The safe route is to not spank.

Then he'll drag you back with arguments of law...when of course that
was not the question and not any of your answers went to that.

He has an endless supply of this garbage is you let him, but they are
all variations on a repetative theme....just a very few logical
fallacy debating ploys.

He's a highschool sophomore intellectual...bright but unskilled
because he keeps, instead of find new ways, doing the same thing over
and over endlessly.

Catch his "debates" with Gowtch, Jerry Alborn, Chris, LaVonne, myself.
Nothing new for years. ... and in most instances he bounced from one
to the other at the first sign of fact and logic refuting his
nonsensical balogna.

"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more
dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely
NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking
and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not
cross,
the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse.
But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and
determined by
them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities
of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the
spanked
child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor
the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud,
you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court
case....



Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from
abusing
their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of
the
suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power
difference
in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a
parent /
child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child
is not a
criminal suspect.

Interestingly I believe Doan may have, certaily other spanking
compulsives have, cited Dr. Dobson, an early childhood development
specialist that portrays children as filled with violence and guile
and out to defeat adults for their own less than honorable ends.

He not only advocates spanking, but very brutal spanking, and grabbing
the nape of the neck and squeezing to create a high level of pain, and
he thinks a dachshund is a formidable opponent to be beaten into
submission....all this by a rather large man.

Doan is a punishment maven. He is unable to conceive of nonpunitive
means of learning and is committed to the ideas of Dobson that humans
are resistant until conquered.

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly
damaged by
our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the
parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy
accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful
when no
proof is given by you to support that!


No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't
harmful.

You have the pleasure of being the two thousand four hundredth
recipient, if you count each hit, of the reframing of your words into
something you didnt' say, but the Doananator. That is what Donanism
IS, among other little tricks he's quite proud of.

The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm.

And in that sentence is eloquently wrapped up what has been offered to
him for years, and all he's done is weasle and squirm and change the
subject and try his reframing of your words, but claiming you are
presenting a "logic" that means that kids and parents and cops and
baton use are somehow metaphorically linked in refutation of your
claim.

Convoluted enough for you? He thinks it's intelligent.

Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged
by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could
have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."


It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter
of the
possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the
case
with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say.

I probably misunderstand, but as long as the child is the only arbiter
of the damage the risk is extremely high. The parent is all poweful,
even to influencing the views and biases of the child when they are
NOT in the child's best interest.

Child will willingly present for a blood drawing thrashing if the
parent convinces them it's deserved and appropriate.

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!



OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive
hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is
damaging,
would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of
damage is
the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain
of where
to place the line.

Gee, now if that isn't a bushel of weasel "hides"? He'll keep you
busy for a week with all that. Cut him down to one issue at a time and
wait for an answer.

Of course he'll be gone when you do and claim YOU ran.

That's what happened to him with The Question. He set it up himself
with his claim to neutrality, and his insistance that the parent is
the arbiter of the difference between spanking and abuse. I merely
asked for a bit of clarity on how parents draw that line.

Instead of being honest, probably congenitally impossible for him. he
actually pretended to himself there was an availabel LINE, he still
instists it exists forgetting that I asked for the measure to be
practical.

We are reasonable sure there is actually an end to the universe, but
nobody I know had been there and can use it do decide where on this
planet would be best to live, ...so they don't go there.

He is incapable of understanding even the most basic logic, that does
not serve his compulsions and neurotic twitches, as you are learning.

Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This
is a
technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child
might be
spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction
which
could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence
or
possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced.

Again, exactly to the point. He'll just claim that that might be true
but what has that to do with spanking...spanking is proven to work
too...and of course shinin' on the risk factor.

He play both sides of the net very well, but not to any conclusions.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all
parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own
informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims,
folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP
question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable
people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You
bring up
the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is
that
the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all
got
into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going
to
beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the
possibility of
abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not
the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should
not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!



I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates
to
courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the
situation
of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to
apprehend
a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a
threat to
society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking,
loving,
caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit
different
endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that
you used.

Noooo....Droany?

Inadequacy? But that IS his point. He can keep people, decent,
honorable, thoughtful, concerned people his to play with for months.

that's the same method all sociopaths use as well. They can't and
don't go after their own kind. They go after the decent normal folks
that do not have a lot of knowledge of their nonsense.

My background is primarily in mental health.

That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you
accept that
said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the
child who
is damaged it, albeit unknowingly.

Oh, he has made it clear, with his statement of "let the parent make
up their own mind" claim of innocence of bias on his part. He does NOT
want anyone else having any input until the damage is done.

A true son of Darwin approach. He might be right, but I'm not buying.
Not as long as children are the unwilling ones at risk in that
experiment.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not
physically
abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you
are of
a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not
mentally
abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to
do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and
see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the
child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal
of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much
stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).


Don'tchajustloveit? If you don't punish then your only alternative is
"to do nothing?"

Does THAT not point directly to neurotic hysterical blindness?

You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have
immediat
compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work.

With two very common risks: having to escalate to the point of abuse
to get compliance, the extinguishing factor; and the creation of a
sneak or a monster. Fortunately "sneak" is most common, but the
monsterous brute comes along now and then. Have YOU ever known any
unspanked kids that were sneaky or monsters as a rule?

There is a
lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select,
if any.
My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of
those
issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment.
He is a
wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction between
parent
and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute
one
punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help
the
child to learn SELF discipline.

Your experience with your son is the rule, not the exception. Parents
who determine to not punishe immediately have but a few alternatives.
And these are the best of all ways to raise a child. Respect for his
or her actual inner state of being....spankers never have to even
learn this....no motivation.

Non-spankers have to look at coaching and methods from proven learning
theory, and apply them for the best mix and match for their children
under changing environmental conditions, age, etc. Spankers have
nearly zero motivation compared to a non-spanking parent.

ALL the attention of nonspankers goes for a time to non punitive
parenting. Spankers hardly ever examine the whole body of knowledge
unless it relates to their punishment model in some way.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment
by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?



Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument?

Do you want to learn to dance with a weasel?

There are studies that
demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you are
quoting
are attempting to ascertain.

Interestingly one of the reasons he's skipped from debating me is that
I offered, if he would abandon a couple of his more common evasive
ploys, unmet loudmouthed dares to refute information he claims he
already has, but won't produce himself, and an unwillingness to admit
when he's been bested, we could move to the one most outstanding study
on the successful use of non-punitive methods done about 26 years ago
in a study by Dennis Embry (you should look him up...he went on to
apply the principles learn on larger projects...and is used by major
government bodies for safety planning etc. ) on street entries of
preschoolers.

Hot stuff, and Doan is here avoiding it by babbling old and resolved
issues, even using the same tired disproven metaphors,

He insists I'm running by asking him to answer the three
questions/challenges first. But I was NOT the one that made the
challenges other than the one question he can't answer honestly, The
one you are talking about now.

So I cannot comment on them.

Any time he can run YOU he's avoided the valid question you pose of
HIS claims. It's a constant for him.

Just another dodge of the weasel, first left, then right, etc.
endlessly.

I would be
interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside
from one
line sentences of irrelevant analogies.

His only "refutation" will be that you continue to come up with more
and more support for your claim, no matter what you offer. Post after
post of it for weeks if he can sucker you into it.

It would certainly be fine if you
want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have
read.

Read closely and insist on the source...one that has access you can
obtain. Read them for yourself, noticing the variable present he
doesn't admit to, and more importantly, the one's absent the
researcher didn't account for. Which he also avoids responding to when
mentioned to him.

Good hunting. Weasels can't stand bright light.

Kane

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between spanking
and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not cross,
the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse. But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and determined by
them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the spanked
child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud, you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court case....



Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from abusing
their target.

You are kidding, I hope! Where in the police training manual does it say
that their goal is not to refrain from abusing their target? And in court
case, the "reasonable" doubt can be a matter of life and death!

Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of the
suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power difference
in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a parent /
child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child is not a
criminal suspect.

WHAT??? Are you saying that parents are more likely to abuse their kids
than it is for the police to abuse their suspects??? And true, a child
is not a criminal suspect - He/she DOES NOT HAVE THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENT!

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by
our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful when no
proof is given by you to support that!


No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't
harmful. The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm.

Wrong logic, again. Do you also avoid talking to your kids if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm?


Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."


It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter of the
possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the case
with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say.

Ok, how about time-out, talking to your kids and removing privileges?

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!



OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is damaging,
would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of damage is
the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain of where
to place the line.

I can be certain that one light swat on the buttock, with the same force
that you use to clap your hands, is not abuse. Do you agree?

And no, I do not agree that the aributer of the damage is the victim.
Otherwise, ALL suspects would claim that they were ABUSED by the police!

Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This is a
technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child might be
spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction which
could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence or
possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced.

Agreed! If redirection works, there is no need for the spankings! You are
not claiming that redirection will work in 100% of the cases, are you?
And you also wrong about spanking as a first response, as you implied
above. Look at:
http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/L...Larzelere.html
The model is: reasoning -- non-cp - spanking.


I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims, folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You bring up
the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is that
the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all got
into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going to
beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the possibility of
abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!



I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates to
courts and police.

WHY?

But those analogies are not comparable to the situation
of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to apprehend
a suspect.

Which means that they are far more likely to abuse the suspect than a
parent to abuse their kids.


In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a threat to
society.

Which means that there is no inherent loving relationship as with a
parent/child.

In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking, loving,
caring human being who is the best person s/he can be.

And parents have demonstrated through out the ages, across cultures,
nationalitiies and religions, that they are capable of doing that - WITH
SPANKING!

Quite a bit different
endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that you used.

In other words, you pick and choose where it fit your purpose but cried
foul when other situation are pointed out. How about CPS deciding whether
or not to remove a child? Shouldn't there be a "reasonable" standard
there too?


That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you accept that
said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the child who
is damaged it, albeit unknowingly.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Please clarify.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not physically
abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you are of
a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not mentally
abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).


You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have immediat
compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work. There is a
lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select, if any.

There are times that immediate compliance is needed, other times there is
not. Did I say anything about parenting being only about punishment? You
are setting up a strawman here.

My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of those
issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment. He is a
wonderfully behaved child.

Good for you. But what does this have to with the price of gas? :-)

The whole package of interaction between parent
and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute one
punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help the
child to learn SELF discipline.

DEFINITELY! Read the classic study on parenting styles by Dr. Baumrind.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment
by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?



Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument?

Already have! By showing that these studies don't support an
anti-spanking agenda.

There are studies that demonstrate everything.

Really? Then perhaps you cannot show me one that demonstrate your
alternatives to spanking are better under the same conditions.

I do not know what the studies that you are quoting
are attempting to ascertain. So I cannot comment on them. I would be
interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside from one
line sentences of irrelevant analogies. It would certainly be fine if you
want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have read.

Your arguments are just not logical. You are blinded by your belief that
all spankings is harmful without looking at facts. When confronted with
evidences contrary to you blind faith, all you could countered is: "There
are studies that demonstrate everything."

Doan

Stephanie Stowe wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message

OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse.
----------------------
No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no
one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be
ALLOWED to postulate that!

The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child
is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment!
The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Stephanie Stowe wrote:

"Doan" wrote in message

OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive
hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse.
----------------------
No, you ****ing squirrel!! They just got done telling you that no
one can MAKE a reasonable argument to that effect, you cannot be
ALLOWED to postulate that!

The only person fit to decide abuse is the victim of it! The child
is that person, and is the only one fit to govern their treatment!
The fact that you just don't LIKE that is just too ****ing bad!!
Steve

Isn't that about what I was saying at the point AFTER you gave up reading?

S

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:56:15 -0500, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:

And smacks the child's butt most thoroughly.....R R R R

Nice going Stephanie......

If you care you can google on his name and look for this cops and
batons subject....you'll see he's posted on this before and been told
pretty much, with less eloquence than yours I might add, the same
thing.

There is no comparison between cops and perps and children and
parents. Just doesn't compute for who each is and the variable
outcomes desired.



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

He'll keep you going though until he finds something, anything, that
you have no answer for, like why you chose one word and not another
and that that then makes you a liar...seriously, he'll do that.



See above.

It's been his posting style for years. When you wear him down through
all his garbage and fuzzy brained nonsense that will be all that is
left.

And he's come here, as I predicted he would do, in search of a time
consuming rest while he avoids actually giving the answer he knows,
and you demonstrate once again to him (dozen of folks have before)
that The Question has been answered, as unanswerable, with the same
considerations then that you offer. The safe route is to not spank.

Then he'll drag you back with arguments of law...when of course that
was not the question and not any of your answers went to that.


I wish he would actually refute any of my arguments.

He has an endless supply of this garbage is you let him, but they are
all variations on a repetative theme....just a very few logical
fallacy debating ploys.

He's a highschool sophomore intellectual...bright but unskilled
because he keeps, instead of find new ways, doing the same thing over
and over endlessly.

Catch his "debates" with Gowtch, Jerry Alborn, Chris, LaVonne, myself.
Nothing new for years. ... and in most instances he bounced from one
to the other at the first sign of fact and logic refuting his
nonsensical balogna.


Sigh.


"Doan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Stephanie Stowe wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
m...
I'm truly saddened at the turn of events.

The master debater of alt.parenting.spanking, holding sway all
these
years, has failed us.

Failed me.

I gave him a chance to prove a simple but long accepted premise
that
he, and others who have come here, hold as a given.

That there is a line between Corporal Punish, and the more
dangers
abusive use of hitting, that they knew and thus could safely
NOT
CROSS, for the sake of their children.



There is a fundamental problem with this idea of a line between
spanking
and
abuse. For their to be a line one could be assured one would not
cross,
the
administrator of the spanking must be the determinant of abuse.
But
abuse is
in the eye of the abused. The harm is done unto them and
determined by
them.
The line will shift and move according to some unknown qualities
of the
administrator and the vastly more important reception of the
spanked
child.
The spanked child does not have the ability to understand, nor
the
control
to change, the environment. That is, s/he could not say "Hey bud,
you
crossed the line. Knock it off."

Using that logic, there is a fundamental problem with the use of
"reasonable"
force by the police , the use of "reasonable" doubt in court
case....



Not at all. The goal of the police officer is not to refrain from
abusing
their target. Their task is to aprehend the suspect. The treatment of
the
suspect is only one consideration to take into account. The power
difference
in the case of police officer and suspect is so much less than in a
parent /
child relationship the risk of abuse is greatly diminished. A child
is not a
criminal suspect.

Interestingly I believe Doan may have, certaily other spanking
compulsives have, cited Dr. Dobson, an early childhood development
specialist that portrays children as filled with violence and guile
and out to defeat adults for their own less than honorable ends.

He not only advocates spanking, but very brutal spanking, and grabbing
the nape of the neck and squeezing to create a high level of pain, and
he thinks a dachshund is a formidable opponent to be beaten into
submission....all this by a rather large man.

Doan is a punishment maven. He is unable to conceive of nonpunitive
means of learning and is committed to the ideas of Dobson that humans
are resistant until conquered.

So when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly
damaged by
our
spanking past, it is not by some measurable means which the
parents
could
have applied to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy
accident.

Illogical! You have already concluded that spanking is harmful
when no
proof is given by you to support that!


No I didn't. I said that there is no way to be certain that it wasn't
harmful.

You have the pleasure of being the two thousand four hundredth
recipient, if you count each hit, of the reframing of your words into
something you didnt' say, but the Doananator. That is what Donanism
IS, among other little tricks he's quite proud of.

The better part of caution would be do avoid it if you cannot
guarantee the absence of harm.

And in that sentence is eloquently wrapped up what has been offered to
him for years, and all he's done is weasle and squirm and change the
subject and try his reframing of your words, but claiming you are
presenting a "logic" that means that kids and parents and cops and
baton use are somehow metaphorically linked in refutation of your
claim.

Convoluted enough for you? He thinks it's intelligent.

Using your logic, I can say: "So
when some of us are walking examples of not being horribly damaged
by our
XXXX, it is not by some measurable means which the parents could
have
applied
to ensure this end. But really it is just a happy accident."


It would rather depend on what XXX is and whether the final arbiter
of the
possible damage caused by XXX is the child himself. If that were the
case
with XXX then, yes, that is what I would say.

I probably misunderstand, but as long as the child is the only arbiter
of the damage the risk is extremely high. The parent is all poweful,
even to influencing the views and biases of the child when they are
NOT in the child's best interest.

Child will willingly present for a blood drawing thrashing if the
parent convinces them it's deserved and appropriate.

Try replacing XXXX with any non-cp alternative!



OK, let's assume that there is a line between spanking and abusive
hitting,
henceforth just referred to as abuse. It is a given that abuse is
damaging,
would you not agree? If you further accept that the aributer of
damage is
the victim of the abuse, then it follows that you cannot be certain
of where
to place the line.

Gee, now if that isn't a bushel of weasel "hides"? He'll keep you
busy for a week with all that. Cut him down to one issue at a time and
wait for an answer.

Of course he'll be gone when you do and claim YOU ran.

That's what happened to him with The Question. He set it up himself
with his claim to neutrality, and his insistance that the parent is
the arbiter of the difference between spanking and abuse. I merely
asked for a bit of clarity on how parents draw that line.

Instead of being honest, probably congenitally impossible for him. he
actually pretended to himself there was an availabel LINE, he still
instists it exists forgetting that I asked for the measure to be
practical.

We are reasonable sure there is actually an end to the universe, but
nobody I know had been there and can use it do decide where on this
planet would be best to live, ...so they don't go there.

He is incapable of understanding even the most basic logic, that does
not serve his compulsions and neurotic twitches, as you are learning.

Now, let's take redirection in the case of a very small child. This
is a
technique that is frequently used in situations where a small child
might be
spanked or slapped on the hand. There is no extreme to distraction
which
could cause damaging as with spanking / hitting. There is no presence
or
possibility of abuse. So there is no line which can be misplaced.

Again, exactly to the point. He'll just claim that that might be true
but what has that to do with spanking...spanking is proven to work
too...and of course shinin' on the risk factor.

He play both sides of the net very well, but not to any conclusions.

I just wanted to know where that line was, as a service to all
parents
who Doan says he just wants to encourage to make up their own
informed
minds.

His reason for even posting here is to encourge, he claims,
folks to
seek out their OWN knowledge for decision making on the CP
question.

Yet, his only answer to The Question, one asking for practical
accuracy, was "reasonable standards," "or what reasonable
people would
agree upon."


Uggghhh. Reasonable AGREED UPON standards are problematic. You
bring up
the
issue of the inability to reach agreement. More pointed though is
that
the
agreement of a bunch of detached adults is irrelevant. If we all
got
into a
room and agreed that making a kid go cut the switch we were going
to
beat
them with is OK, that would certainly not eliminate the
possibility of
abuse
occuring. Because the adults administering the hitting are not
the
aribiters
of the abuse or the determinant of whether or not it is damaging.
Whether or
not the child is damaged is.

So we should have no "reasonable" standards??? The police should
not use
"reasonable" force and the courts should not use "reasonable" doubt
standard!!!



I have no problem with the use of the word reasonable as it relates
to
courts and police. But those analogies are not comparable to the
situation
of raising a child. In the case of the police, they are trying to
apprehend
a suspect. In the case of the courts, they are trying to remove a
threat to
society. In the case of a child, we are trying to raise a thinking,
loving,
caring human being who is the best person s/he can be. Quite a bit
different
endeavors, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the analogies that
you used.

Noooo....Droany?

Inadequacy? But that IS his point. He can keep people, decent,
honorable, thoughtful, concerned people his to play with for months.

that's the same method all sociopaths use as well. They can't and
don't go after their own kind. They go after the decent normal folks
that do not have a lot of knowledge of their nonsense.

My background is primarily in mental health.

That some adults AGREE that a certain level of CP is "OK" if you
accept that
said adults are not the final aribiters of what is damage, but the
child who
is damaged it, albeit unknowingly.

Oh, he has made it clear, with his statement of "let the parent make
up their own mind" claim of innocence of bias on his part. He does NOT
want anyone else having any input until the damage is done.

A true son of Darwin approach. He might be right, but I'm not buying.
Not as long as children are the unwilling ones at risk in that
experiment.

The only truly 100% effective way to ensure that you do not
physically
abuse
your kids is to refrain from hitting 100% of the time. Now if you
are of
a
punitive mindset, that does not guarantee that you will not
mentally
abuse
them. But there can be no guarantee of that.

Seem like the only sure way is to do NOTHING! ;-) Since we have to
do
something, let's compare spanking to the non-cp alternatives and
see.
In Straus & Mouradian (1998), they looked at:1) Talking to the
child
calmly, 2) Sent the child to the room, 3) Time-out and 4) Removal
of
privileges. They found that these "was found to have a much
stronger
relation than any of the other variables." (to ASB - antisociable
behavior).


Don'tchajustloveit? If you don't punish then your only alternative is
"to do nothing?"

Does THAT not point directly to neurotic hysterical blindness?

You look at this as a single incident situation. If you must have
immediat
compliance this second for this offense, then spanking can work.

With two very common risks: having to escalate to the point of abuse
to get compliance, the extinguishing factor; and the creation of a
sneak or a monster. Fortunately "sneak" is most common, but the
monsterous brute comes along now and then. Have YOU ever known any
unspanked kids that were sneaky or monsters as a rule?

There is a
lot more to parenting than just which mode of punishment you select,
if any.
My son is 3 years old; he is very rarely punished, and on several of
those
issues, it was I who was in the wrong for meting out the punishment.
He is a
wonderfully behaved child. The whole package of interaction between
parent
and children has to be examined, not just whether or not to subsitute
one
punitive method for another. Discipline, after all, is meant to help
the
child to learn SELF discipline.

Your experience with your son is the rule, not the exception. Parents
who determine to not punishe immediately have but a few alternatives.
And these are the best of all ways to raise a child. Respect for his
or her actual inner state of being....spankers never have to even
learn this....no motivation.

Non-spankers have to look at coaching and methods from proven learning
theory, and apply them for the best mix and match for their children
under changing environmental conditions, age, etc. Spankers have
nearly zero motivation compared to a non-spanking parent.

ALL the attention of nonspankers goes for a time to non punitive
parenting. Spankers hardly ever examine the whole body of knowledge
unless it relates to their punishment model in some way.

Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal
Punishment
by
Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children."
Behavioral
Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374.

Do you know of any non-cp alternatives that has stood to the same
statiscal scrutiny that spanking was subjected to?



Do you want to discuss the merits of my argument?

Do you want to learn to dance with a weasel?

There are studies that
demonstrate everything. I do not know what the studies that you are
quoting
are attempting to ascertain.

Interestingly one of the reasons he's skipped from debating me is that
I offered, if he would abandon a couple of his more common evasive
ploys, unmet loudmouthed dares to refute information he claims he
already has, but won't produce himself, and an unwillingness to admit
when he's been bested, we could move to the one most outstanding study
on the successful use of non-punitive methods done about 26 years ago
in a study by Dennis Embry (you should look him up...he went on to
apply the principles learn on larger projects...and is used by major
government bodies for safety planning etc. ) on street entries of
preschoolers.

Hot stuff, and Doan is here avoiding it by babbling old and resolved
issues, even using the same tired disproven metaphors,

He insists I'm running by asking him to answer the three
questions/challenges first. But I was NOT the one that made the
challenges other than the one question he can't answer honestly, The
one you are talking about now.

So I cannot comment on them.

Any time he can run YOU he's avoided the valid question you pose of
HIS claims. It's a constant for him.

Just another dodge of the weasel, first left, then right, etc.
endlessly.

I would be
interested if you have a specific refutation of my arguments aside
from one
line sentences of irrelevant analogies.

His only "refutation" will be that you continue to come up with more
and more support for your claim, no matter what you offer. Post after
post of it for weeks if he can sucker you into it.

It would certainly be fine if you
want to use the material you learned in the studies that you have
read.

Read closely and insist on the source...one that has access you can
obtain. Read them for yourself, noticing the variable present he
doesn't admit to, and more importantly, the one's absent the
researcher didn't account for. Which he also avoids responding to when
mentioned to him.

Good hunting. Weasels can't stand bright light.

Kane