Spanking Debate (Flame-free)

My position is:

-- Spanking is not necessary.
-- Spanking is harmful.
-- Any child can be raised well without spanking.
-- Spanking tends to cause worse behaviour in the long run.

If anyone is interested in debating any of these points without
posting personal insults, I invite you to read my article
"Reasons not to spank children" on my web page
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html, as my opening arguments
in the debate, and then reply in this thread with your own
position and arguments.

If you're one of the people who has posted personal insults
in reply to my posts in the past, please include a statement
that you are willing to participate in a debate without posting
insults.
--
Cathy

Since at least 94% of humanity, has been raised with at least one swat, the
whole question is somewhat pointless.

Spanking is NOT the best altenative.

It should not be used first.

It should not be used routinely.

Talk, diversion, distraction, and education are much better tactics.

However, we live in a society where CPS has run amuck. That reminds me, I
shall post the latest on MSBP with CAS in Ontario.

A true example of government interference making a situation worse.

May I remind you that those who are most verbally abusive, use hate speech when
referring to females are those who rail most against spanking and who salute
and welcome the faceless bureaucrats into the family situation.

And you know to whom I refer, Catherine.

Catherine,

I agree 100% with your position and don't believe many would disagree with
it. I'm glad you are posting in an attempt to spark open and honest
dialogue--something that has been missing for several years on this n.g.
It would be nice to set up some rules, etc..to give this discussion some
boundaries. I would like to see parents revisit and seek honest/open
feedback and not be run off when they speak their minds. This should have
been a place they could come for help, support, advise and education on
the use of C.P. not the propaganda forum it currently is.

Where my position differs from the "cohorts" is in the process. I support
educating parents to use more appropriate forms of child management while
they would outlaw and punish families through statutes fuzzing the line of
abuse and further alienating those that need to be brought into this
discussion the most.

Thanks for trying to open this up!

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX

Top Post to Chris C and Catherine:

And to echo what Chris C has said and to bolster my supposition that CPS not CP
in the US has harmed families more than helped them.

CPS officially began as a Government institution in 74.

Funded by the need to curb drug abuses and to stop the *battered child
syndrome.*

Since then, the US has seen increasing, not lessening, reports of child abuse
being called into the Hotlines.

All classes of folks have been harassed, and unfairly targeted.

As Chris C suggested, I support Preschool education to involve families and the
community into more cooperative modes of child rearing.

I believe most parents want what is BEST for their children. Truly.

However, the government has cut funding for Head Start (which is proven to be
effective in low-income areas).

There are all kinds of innovative programs which the Feds could implement to
improve early childhood education, which would also have the effect of giving a
child a safe, stable relationship with a preschool teacher, should he be in a
dangerous home situation.

Parents can be required to work within the program and form relationships with
other Moms and Dads.

Instead, we continue to fund foster care (legislative inertia) and make it
difficult for KIN to foster their own.

See Washington state grass roots organizations, for example.

CPS is a blunt tool, which has inspired massive disrespect for the government
and for case workers.

Spanking is not the best alternative. Children should have limits, but first
they need a safe place to play and stimulating environments.

I do not know if you are familiar with some inner-city neighborhoods, but the
local school may be the ONLY SAFE place for children to come together.

Parents can learn alternative behavior modifying techniques with children while
cutting out stars for bulletin boards.

The US legislative bodies have funded massive government programs---indeed, CPS
took 3M reports in 96.

Less than 1/3 of these were substantiated.

However, Head Start and Early Head Start have been shown to carry forth
long-lasting academic success.

CPS is an outmoded institution. Education is certainly better than edict.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com



Chris C and Catherine wrote:

Subject: Spanking Debate (Flame-free)
From: "cdc0038"
Date: 9/7/2004 11:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
boutparenting.com

Catherine,

I agree 100% with your position and don't believe many would disagree with
it. I'm glad you are posting in an attempt to spark open and honest
dialogue--something that has been missing for several years on this n.g.
It would be nice to set up some rules, etc..to give this discussion some
boundaries. I would like to see parents revisit and seek honest/open
feedback and not be run off when they speak their minds. This should have
been a place they could come for help, support, advise and education on
the use of C.P. not the propaganda forum it currently is.

Where my position differs from the "cohorts" is in the process. I support
educating parents to use more appropriate forms of child management while
they would outlaw and punish families through statutes fuzzing the line of
abuse and further alienating those that need to be brought into this
discussion the most.

Thanks for trying to open this up!

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX

On 12 Sep 2004 14:25:31 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

.......more nonsense and lies.............


Top Post to Chris C and Catherine:

And to echo what Chris C has said and to bolster my supposition that
CPS not CP
in the US has harmed families more than helped them.

Nonsense. They have saved children's lives, and childhoods.

CPS officially began as a Government institution in 74.

Cihld protection has been around since the late 1800's, with
considerable action taken in the early 1900's. You are full of
nonsense as usual.

Children of poor families that could not support them and keep them
safe (neglect issues) were in institutions long before
that...government institutions as well as private charitable ones. My
own paternal grandmother, whose mother died and whose father was an
out of work miner left her in just such an institution, from where she
was adopted by a well known Nebraska family involved in the burgeoning
oil exploration business. Lucky kid...they spoiled her pretty much.

She grew up to have five very successful children of her own, my aunt,
uncles an father. We are very aware of her history and the politics of
child welfare.

Institutionalizing children became a hot political issue during the
Roosevelt administration..the first one.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl..._16108108/pg_2
"A shift in policy preference from institutions to family homes took
place during the Progressive Era. This shift is probably best
exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt's proclamation at the first White
House Conference on Children in 1909 that "Home life is the highest
and finest product of civilization. Children should not be denied it
except for urgent and compelling reasons."(24) For some children,
living with widowed mothers, direct relief became the policy of choice
of progressive social workers. For other children, placement in
"boarding homes" and "free homes" (roughly the equivalents of modern
day foster care) increasingly became the preferred policy, in keeping
with the deinstitutionalization movement that had earlier sought to
remove children from almshouses.(25)
"
This led to a formalized foster care system being instituted. But even
prior to that there were systems in the US:

http://www.nfpainc.org/aboutFP/FC_history.cfm?page=2

Here's a small piece of the actual history, instead of your ignorant
ranting:
"As a result of the New York Children's Aid Society's placements,
sectarian social agencies and state governments became involved in
foster home placements. Three states led the movement. Massachusetts,
prior to 1865, began paying board to families who took care of
children too young to be indentured. Pennsylvania passed the first
licensing law in 1885 which made it a misdemeanor to care for two or
more unrelated children without a license. South Dakota began
providing subsidies to the Children's Home Society after it was
organized in 1893 for its public child care work.

During the early 1900's, social agencies began to supervise foster
parents. Records were kept, children's individual needs were
considered when placements were made, and the federal government began
supporting state inspections of family foster homes. Services were
provided to natural families to enable the child to return home and
foster parents were now seen as part of a professional team working to
find permanency for dependent children."

Notice the early government involvement?

Funded by the need to curb drug abuses and to stop the *battered
child
syndrome.*

Nonsense. You continue your asshole assumptoins. States could not do a
damn thing, for instance, about the "drug abuses" fetuses, until the
mid 1990's when the first laws on that issue were passed. CPS has
always been an after the fact inforcement agency. The only preabuse
interventions would be because of a sibling intervention that curbed
abuse of others in the household by rehabilitating the parents.

Put up some proof of your claims....no, it's obvious you won't.

Since then, the US has seen increasing, not lessening, reports of
child abuse
being called into the Hotlines.

In the begining people were not accustomed to making such calls,
thinking still, as in the past, that these things were better left to
the families to solve on their own. Increasing isolation from the
growing mobility of citizens, cut that notion off, as most young folks
left for distant parts and began families.

It finally became apparent to the public that the abused and neglected
child only really had only one advocate.....the individual witnessing
citizen. Many of them parents themselves, and some even the parents of
the parents that were the perps.

The other increases were attributable to the growing drug
problem....and the ever-present, but larger population increasing,
alchohol problem.

Today one can find meth and meth cookers everywhere, from highrise
upper class condos, to the family suburbs, to the farm and rural and
even woods and deserts of this country...nowhere lacks them. I've seen
dealing and production going on in places as remote as Sitka Alaska,
where they are found even on boats, to the swank yuppy reaches of
Queen Anne hill in Seattle, da hood in Phoenix along with Mesa and
Scottsdale -- the wealthiest area in that region, Oakland, South
Sacramento, and West LA, along with Laguna and even Palm Springs.

This country is awash in drugs, of all kinds. No one is immune or safe
from it and its harm...and YOU want to cut funding to CPS.

All classes of folks have been harassed, and unfairly targeted.

Bull****... all classes of folks abuse and neglect their children. How
do you "unfairly" target "all classes" you silly propaganda spouting
piece of ****?

As Chris C suggested, I support Preschool education to involve
families and the
community into more cooperative modes of child rearing.

Abusive and neglectful families do not involved their children in
preschool programs. That would would be, by you, an ignorant oxymoron.

I believe most parents want what is BEST for their children. Truly.

Well big yahoo for you. Who ever said they didn't? Of course MOST do,
but that leaves the strong possibility that something up to 49% might
not, and proof of some percentage that don't, and are caught at it.

And a small percentage that have no idea they are injuring their
children.

However, the government has cut funding for Head Start (which is
proven to be
effective in low-income areas).

As early as 1999, sufficient deficiencies noted in the three types of
Head Start programs by mandated monitoring showed that
Information

Fiscal year 1999 compliance monitoring, percent of Grantees
(programs) with deficiencies:

Head Start Only 18% (yet only 19% of those were terminated)


Early Head Start Only 13%


Head Start & Early Head Start (combined Grantee) 14%

Does that look like success to you, Yew?

Hell, those scores would be worse than the ones states were seen to
have "failed" the federal program evaluations for child protection.

Then there's this:

http://www.cato.org/research/educati...headstart.html

"Consider the views of child-development scholar Edward Zigler, a
founder of Head Start. As far back as 1987, when educators were
debating the merits of universal preschool, he warned, "This is not
the first time universal preschool education has been proposed…[In the
past], as now, the arguments in favor of preschool education were that
it would reduce school failure, lower dropout rates, increase test
scores, and produce a generation of more competent high school
graduates….Preschool education will achieve none of these results."

What Zigler recognized is that a child's academic and personal growth
turn on a lot more than preschool. Family, natural abilities,
neighborhood, and life experiences easily outweigh the influence of
preschool. Preschools may teach children how to count, follow
directions, and get along; Zigler himself favors universal preschool
as a means to achieve school readiness. But preschool alone, like Head
Start alone, confers no lasting advantage. To put all children on an
equal footing would require genetic engineering, surrogate parents,
and for many kids, home away from home."

And from the same source (we've known for a very long time that Head
Start was a boondogle make work program with poor to no results):

"In 1985 the Department of Health and Human Services undertook the
first meta-analysis of Head Start research and shook the establishment
with its dire findings: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional
test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to
those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In
other words, Head Start was a false start--the net gain to children
was zero. "

And:

"The most recent and thorough analysis of Head Start was conducted by
the non-partisan General Accounting Office in 1997. After reviewing
more than 600 citations, manuscripts, and studies, GAO concluded, "The
body of research on current Head Start is insufficient to draw
conclusions about the impact of the national program."

In a sense, the GAO is right: sloppy study designs and amateur
methodological errors so riddle the literature that any claims about
the success or failure of the program are not convincing. Given that,
one might suggest that more research is needed before giving up on the
program. On the other hand, one might also look for guidance from
other programs that bear a striking resemblance to Head Start. On
this, findings are conclusive: early intervention programs can boost
children's test scores, but those gains wash out within a few years of
exiting the programs.
"
Bleeding heart liberals are one of the most divisive and destructive
forces in society....this has been so for millinea, and will likely be
so for the rest of human history...which will be damn short if we keep
letting you twits get into power.

There are all kinds of innovative programs which the Feds could
implement to
improve early childhood education,

Notice what Ed Zigler, one of the originators of the Head Start
program said? It doesn't do what the public thinks it does.

which would also have the effect of giving a
child a safe, stable relationship with a preschool teacher, should he
be in a
dangerous home situation.

24/7? Please, dimwit. As usual, the liberal self delusion....fact
dysfunctional, where it's not entirely absent.

Parents can be required to work within the program

The CAN? In the United States? According to the Constitution and
Amendments? Legally? Come now.

And with the liberal fascists wanting MORE government control over
families they will do so BY REQUIREMENT, only two ways....by enforced
attendance, and by classes in the penitentary.

The rest of us won't volunteer. That's just how Americans are.

and form relationships with
other Moms and Dads.

Hell, they have them already. The get together sometimes nightly for
Blow parties.

Instead, we continue to fund foster care (legislative inertia) and
make it
difficult for KIN to foster their own.

Going to go for the Big Lie, I see. Well, commence.

It gives me such pleasure to provide facts...to actually educate, as
opposed to your propaganda.

See Washington state grass roots organizations, for example.

RR R R ...have you not been reading my posted replies to your nonsense
the past few days, or is your only possible comeback because your are
lying and the facts are not as you claim, to simply repeat the lie? Of
course it is.

From my message

or: http://tinyurl.com/5m3sq

"Interested in the truth? Let's see:

http://www.aasa.dshs.wa.gov/topics/c...inshipcare.htm

And instead of a lying little tag line, I'll give you the entire page
quoted verbatim:

According to the 2000 Census, 86,000 children in Washington State live
in households with grandparents and other relatives with or without
their parents present.
An estimated 35,806 grandparents are the primary caregivers for their
grandchildren living with them.
Thirty-eight support groups for relatives raising children exist in
our state.
In 1988, Washington State/Aging and Adult Services Administration
received a RAPP (Relatives as Parents Program) State Initiative Grant
from the Brookdale Foundation.
For the past seven years; a Governor's Proclamation has been issued
for Grandparents and Relatives Raising Children Day.
The RAPP website, a collaborative effort between Aging and Adult
Services Administration and the Cooperative Extension-Washington State
University, is located at http://parenting.wsu.edu/relative/index.htm
"

CPS is a blunt tool,

No, police and criminal investigations and convictions are the "blunt
tool."

CPS is a social service agency. One with the intent of reunifying
families, which it does to the tune of 60% of those children removed
from families, and a considerable number receiving in-home services
that are not ever removed.

If this were not so, and CPS was a "blunt tool" then there would be no
listing of so many reunification and preservations programs for child
welfare, the majority administered and delivered by CPS and their
"jacklegs" at:

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/topics/responding/inhome.cfm

which has inspired massive disrespect for the government
and for case workers.

You are absolutely correct, except for one tiny little point, that is
of course, the fine example of a tool and lie of propagandists so
profigately use....the "misleading qualifier:" in this case the lie,
"massive."

There is no more than a relatively small group out of the huge
population of the United States, that has such views. The majority of
Americans abhor child abuse and neglect.....these honorable and better
informed folks know that many things have been tried, and even when
conditions are good for a reduction WITHOUT SPECIAL programs, abuse
and neglect just keeps sailing along.

They also suspect, as I do, and scientists keep showing strong
connects to, that child abuse and neglect leads to later crime and
mental illnes, including in the form of developmental
dysfunctions....reducing the quality of life for children for their
rest of their days.

This stealing from the child, and from the society by crippling the
child, is unacceptable to responsible, humane, and thoughtful
citizens.

CPS is nothing more than a institutional tool, created by the citizen
electorate through legal means....as all our government institutions
are.

Spanking is not the best alternative.

It's not even an acceptable alternative to people who think their way
through intelligently to a simple risk assessment. It's impossible to
accurately calculate the risks to the child of hitting them with any
chance of even coming close to understanding the risks. Medical
science makes it clear that the shock of impact trauma is a very
tricky business.

And far too many parents fail in this, and escalate in force,
increments, and duration and do permanent harm...resulting in
sometimes drawing CPS attention (as this society intends) and either
losing their chilren or wising up.

Children should have limits,

Nothing is easier if one does not have control freak issues as you
twits appear to. Children want to learn and cooperative with people
that cooperate with their need to learn.

but first
they need a safe place to play and stimulating environments.

Tell me about it. YOU would create more hellholes, as would douggie,
by trying to remove CPS from the picture with funding cuts and other
previously unmanded limits, ...and unneeded limits, and moving the bar
on government intervention to the level of criminal harm to the child.

Any one that can actually think, rather than get others to do it for
them, can sort through that and see where the huge holes are...in
terms of damage to children.

One could get away with a great deal before they met the criminal
limits level...that IS why we have civil law as well as criminal law.
And it is correct and senseible that child welfare come under both.

I do not know if you are familiar with some inner-city neighborhoods,
but the
local school may be the ONLY SAFE place for children to come
together.

R R R R....yeah, the 'bangers'' love it there. No one is allowed to
carry guns. The children are terrified to report them, when they do
carry guns and other weapons, and this is in exactly those areas where
homelife is the worst....inner-city neighborhoods, and YOU AND YOUR
CRONIES WANT TO DESTROY THE REAL SAFE PLACE for these children....the
temporary foster care and state custody while things are sorted out.

Parents can learn alternative behavior modifying techniques with
children while
cutting out stars for bulletin boards.

Is there ANY response I could make to that that would not send myself
and others into paroxisms of laughter?

Abusive and neglectful parents are by definition NOT available for
such learning. There, I did it with out laughing.

The US legislative bodies have funded massive government
programs---indeed, CPS
took 3M reports in 96.

Ah, yeah, that's about right...

Less than 1/3 of these were substantiated.

Yep, which includes not even any intervention...no investigation, just
a polite, "thanks" and a dial tone. Of those investigated I'd say 1/3
being substantiated is a horror...for children.

That is a MILLION SUSTANTIATED CHILD ABUSES IN A YEAR. . And that goes
on and on and on. And children are in pain. Do YOU know pain? Can you
project yourself into their situation....NO escape from it....unless
someone reports, some professional, some neighbor, some family or
relative?

Now THAT is living hell.

And you and your asshole buddies are headed to making MORE of it for
children.

However, Head Start and Early Head Start have been shown to carry
forth
long-lasting academic success.

Oh....well, no big deal. And it doesn't cover kids 24/7. And only
about 60% of the eligible children actually are enrolled.

No big deal. Let's fund IT (which won't change a single thing in terms
of outcomes, or enrollments) and defund CPS, that battles the hell of
child abuse successfully every single day.

CPS is an outmoded institution.

You are outmoded, Fertilizer Breath.

Education is certainly better than edict.

Completely unrelated analogy.

Enforced education is exactly what CPS is about....and there is no way
to make abusive or neglectful parents attend...and they don't, unless
forced.

Prove me wrong.


familyrightsassociation.com

Shilling again. So tell us, what's your pay per hit, or are you on
straight commission...each time you find an excuse to post their URL
you get how much?

As for the below....Chris C. hasn't posted open and honest dialogue
for the three years I've observed posts in this ng.

In fact Chris C's signature line, "Non-spanker by choice," is a
classic dishonest claim...as Chris C has no children to make the
choice about.

Typical of you compulsive liars, and compulsive spanker or spanking
advocates....you can't even lie well. Mental and psychological
incompetents.

Kane


Chris C and Catherine wrote:

Subject: Spanking Debate (Flame-free)
From: "cdc0038"
Date: 9/7/2004 11:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
aboutparenting.com

Catherine,

I agree 100% with your position and don't believe many would
disagree with
it. I'm glad you are posting in an attempt to spark open and honest
dialogue--something that has been missing for several years on this
n.g.
It would be nice to set up some rules, etc..to give this discussion
some
boundaries. I would like to see parents revisit and seek honest/open
feedback and not be run off when they speak their minds. This should
have
been a place they could come for help, support, advise and education
on
the use of C.P. not the propaganda forum it currently is.

Where my position differs from the "cohorts" is in the process. I
support
educating parents to use more appropriate forms of child management
while
they would outlaw and punish families through statutes fuzzing the
line of
abuse and further alienating those that need to be brought into this
discussion the most.

Thanks for trying to open this up!

Non-spanker by choice,
Chris C.
TX