We don need no steenkin' CPS.

Doug wrote:
Some time back in this thread I posted this.

I'm waiting for a response.

"Do you think the NEJM is likely to lie, Doug?

Hi, Kane,

No. Calling people "liars" is your M.O.

Only when they attempt to deceive by commission or omission, Doug.

Nonetheless, NEJM has published nothing about 1,000 children dying each year
because of physical abuse that started with spanking. Neither did USDHHS.

So far, I've found nothing. That does not prove they have not. As you
and I both know, much to your embarrassment at times, they have
commissioned many studies that we may not have the link or direct
reference to.

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.

I said that logic and what we KNOW, if you aren't lying about your own
knowledge and familiarity, is that people that DO in fact beat their
children to death claim they were just using discipline.

That is not correct. The USDHHS data you cut and pasted proved it not to be
true.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.

And the true level of abuse and fatalities of children is NOT reflected
in USDHHS data. I have posted other information showing the estimates,
and by polls, to be MUCH MUCH higher.

That you will not accept extrapolating by normal logical means is YOUR
problem, Doug. Always has been as I remember.

In your crusade against spanking, you posted misinformation. You were
caught at it.

No, I posted the information that I had. We do not know if my first post
with reference to 1,000 to 2,000 per year fatalities by escalation from
physical discipline is proven or unproven. The source did not provide
the detail to locate any studies the might have originated with either
organization named.

You are very good at conclusion jumping, I notice. Again.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...urcetype=HWCIT
http://tinyurl.com/nkxtz

"Homicide is the leading cause of infant deaths due to injury, accounting
for almost one third of such deaths in 1996.1 Among children and
adolescents, homicides are most likely to occur in the first year of life,
with similar or higher rates only during later adolescence.1,2,3,4 More
than 80 percent of documented homicides in very young children can be
viewed as fatal child abuse, and there is strong evidence that both
homicides and fatal cases of child abuse are undercounted.5,6,7 In
addition, almost one fourth of infants discharged from acute care
facilities with disabilities due to injury are considered to have been
intentionally injured, almost always as a result of child abuse; in an
additional 8 percent of cases, intentionality is undetermined.8 Risk
factors that can be identified in the prenatal period must be established
both to identify infants at high risk for homicide and to develop timely
and effective interventions." "

This cut and paste also says nothing about 1,000 child fatalities due to
abuse that began with spanking.

Yep.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.

It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.

Now you may want to run back to NCANDS but what you and others are trying
to hide is that not all fatalities by abuse are IN that data. They are
collecting CPS data.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.

Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000
COULD reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven
as yet.

And other information I've posted you are carefully skirting. Why is
that I wonder?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.

To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.

Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.

You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.

It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.

It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.

Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.

You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.

No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.

YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.

Doug wrote:
I wrote:

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.

To which, Kane replies:

I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one of
these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug.

Hi, Kane,

You cited USDHHS and claimed 1,000 children died as the result of abuse that
had escalated from spanking.

You were caught at it.

On May 10, 2006, in a post to this thread, you pasted USDHHS data...

Nearly 1,500 a year kill their children. Pretty much year in and year
out. Think how that mounts up in totals.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...four.htm#child

"Number of Child Fatalities

During 2004, an estimated 1,490 children died (compared to 1,460
children for 2003) from abuse or neglect ..."

And made this claim:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

Your claim above in this post?

"I cited the nearest information available. I did not claim that any one
of these were the result of escalating from spanking, Doug."

You claimed "about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their
parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder." Not one, but
1,000.

No. It simply proved that the data we LOOKED at did not sort it that fine.

You pasted the USDHHS data showing a total of 1,490 fatalities due to
neglect and abuse in 2004 and claimed that 2/3 of that total (1,000) were
"disciplined to death." Actually, the data showed 421 of those child
fatalities were the result of all forms of physical abuse. So, your claim
is clearly false.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.
It wasn't MY misstatement. I was a quote of someone else's statement and
we do not KNOW if it a misstatement yet or not.

It WAS your misstatement. Again, from your post of May 10 in this thread:

"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of 'discipline' that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were 'disciplined to death.'"

That was not a quotation from a source. It was your statement.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.
Nope. I made NO SUCH claim. They are two separate issues. The 1,000 COULD
reside within the number from NCANDS. They're not sorting them out
precisely as to cause is a problem, but not MY problem.

You did make such a claim. It has been quoted twice in this post for you.
You wrote that about a thousand children a year that die at the hands of
their parents do so because of discipline that escalated to murder.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.
No, just unproven. That does not prove it is NOT true. Only not proven as
yet.

YOUR claim was disproven by the very USDHHS data you pasted into the same
post.

So far. And you STILL are avoiding other posts I've made that estimate
that as many as fifteen times more children are abused than are
officially listed.

Why is that Doug?

You seem quite happy in your arguments on various issues to insist that
"surveys" and "reports" based on partial information be used for policy
decisions (Like the Pew Reports).

Why are you avoiding my other posting on this subject and insisting that
ONLY this one statement of mine be considered?

Is it because you are a liar?

I'd say so.

I could, but refuse to use YOUR lying tactics, find numerous things yo
have said over time, take them from context and make the same kinds of
claims you are hung up on right now.

You know and any honest reader knows that I have posted MORE information
than you are claiming.

Hence, you are a liar. Your deception consists of holding the opponent
to only PART of what he has claimed.

Liar.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Kane:
You posted something by somebody else
who cited facts in NEJM that didn't exist.
Have YOU asked them to correct their information?
When you quote an inaccurate source you think
that's not your problem?

Greegor wrote:
Kane:
You posted something by somebody else
who cited facts in NEJM that didn't exist.
Have YOU asked them to correct their information?

No, I sent an e-mail asking them to provide a source for the claim. I've
no reply as yet.

When you quote an inaccurate source you think
that's not your problem?

No. If I did not take some responsibility for it do you think I would
respond to your and other's requests and continue to seek out
corroborating evidence, WHICH I HAVE POSTED AND YOU LIARS ARE AVOIDING
DISCUSSING?

No comment about the poll that showed that parents admit to massively
higher numbers of abuse of their children than the official counts show?

Why are you staying so far away from this?

Something I've claimed for there years in this ng?

And is it not logical that if CPS is NOT catching the abuse that they
are not catching the real number of deaths at the hands of parents as well?

If abuse is 15 times higher by parental confession what might the death
toll be?

A great many children's deaths that are written off as other causes are
very likely at the hands of parents, Greegor.

There's no one in LE, nor public health, nor child protection that is
unaware that the official figures are "cleaned," that is reduced to the
lowest possible number to make sure there are the fewest false positives
as possible.

But those that see the dead children know better. They just aren't
allowed to count them all unless the evidence is concrete enough and
unassailable under legal standards for trial.

This is a hidden problem, Greg. But not hidden from any but the public.

And you ****-heels revel in this particular conservative reality in
reporting to pander to each other and to the abusers.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

When you e-mailed her did you tell her
how tremendously important you are?

Greegor wrote:
When you e-mailed her did you tell her
how tremendously important you are?

Nope. I told her how tremendously important you and others here are,
though.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Kane will lie and distort death statistics to feed his
own paranoic delusions about spanking and dead children.

He must have some major "rescue fantasy" and must
be angry that whole CROWDS of people aren't
following him like the pied piper marching out of Hamelin.

Doug proved Kane lied about the stats.
Kane is a nutcase who sites statistics for things they don't prove.

I suspect the liberals are afraid to address this.