If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote: Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003 Ray Drouillard wrote: Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000 [...] The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children might be placed." [...] Paul: For more context, http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and the report by the Canadian delegation http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of action against the corporal punishment of children in the home other than outrageously objectionable. You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture, your children at your whim? Fancy that. It seems to me a prime example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly address, On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for? and then bolster social engineering programs with "studies" that do not show what they purport to show. "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children using physical and psychological pain. Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the woodshed. Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to each other about what you are doing. In my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of adults. Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was escalated to injury. The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense. Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child. It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly right to oppose this Convention. What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They spank. Mike Morris ) Have a good one, Mike. Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris" wrote: Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003 Ray Drouillard wrote: Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000 [...] The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children might be placed." [...] Paul: For more context, http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and the report by the Canadian delegation http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of action against the corporal punishment of children in the home other than outrageously objectionable. You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture, your children at your whim? Fancy that. It seems to me a prime example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly address, On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for? and then bolster social engineering programs with "studies" that do not show what they purport to show. "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children using physical and psychological pain. Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the woodshed. Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to each other about what you are doing. In my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of adults. Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was escalated to injury. The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense. Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child. It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly right to oppose this Convention. What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They spank. Mike Morris ) Have a good one, Mike. Kane I have seen the social engineer types massage their data. Statistics are easy to wield in a deceptive manner, and most people don't have the skill to figure out how they are being deceived. Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten adults. One must only look around to see examples. Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our maker gave to us: Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is careful to discipline him. Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of discipline drives it far from him. Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol. Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left to himself causes shame to his mother. Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. Ray |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote: It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words and start stirring up the mud. No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now. And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions about spanking with "mud," don't you. I wonder if Kane has a standard rant that is saved to his or her hard drive. No, it's spontaneous, though I do have some sources and citations with quotes archived. It's a pain to have to wade through the piles of dross of the spanking enthusiasts to once again rub their noses in their nonsense. I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never have. Hmmmmm....? I note that after the first exchange, when you can no longer answer with your denial of the pain and humiliation of the child you move right to trying to kill the messenger. Coward. Everybody loves..... Ray mond. Me too. I'd love you even more if you'd stop defending the pounding of children and pretending it is a loving spanking. I hope you reform. May I point you to: http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org "Treat children as you would have them treat you when they're grown." For they very well might. The New Testament freed you. Why not accept it? Kane "MaG Douglas" wrote in message ... Trip Trap, Trip Trap went the middle goat's hooves on the bridge. "Who's that crossing my bridge?" asked the _ _ _ _ _. Ho hum... another bit of crossposted tripe. MaG "Kane" wrote in message om... On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris" wrote: Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003 Ray Drouillard wrote: Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000 [...] The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly prohibit all forms of violence against children, however light, within the family, in schools and in other institutions where children might be placed." [...] Paul: For more context, http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and the report by the Canadian delegation http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of action against the corporal punishment of children in the home other than outrageously objectionable. You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture, your children at your whim? Fancy that. It seems to me a prime example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly address, On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for? and then bolster social engineering programs with "studies" that do not show what they purport to show. "Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children using physical and psychological pain. Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the woodshed. Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to each other about what you are doing. In my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of adults. Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was escalated to injury. The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense. Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child. It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly right to oppose this Convention. What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They spank. Mike Morris ) Have a good one, Mike. Kane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On 9 Oct 2003, Kane wrote: "Ray Drouillard" wrote: It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words and start stirring up the mud. No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now. I wonder if Kane has a standard rant that is saved to his or her hard drive. I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never have. If you *really* were a "serial lurker" in meh-sc, you'd know why he thought that. Makes me think you're lying about your ng habits. but,but... Jon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message m... On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard" wrote: It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words and start stirring up the mud. No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now. And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions about spanking with "mud," don't you. Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude. People who don't care about being rude, and who post on purpose to a list of newsgroups in order to start a fight are trolls. Saying you aren't is like spammers who send a "this is not spam" disclaimer to your e-mail box, proving nothing except that they are a spammer *and* a liar both. Some trolls do it for fun... some trolls do it because it is their nature. Being sincere is not an excuse. --Julie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Julie Pascal" wrote in message ... Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude. I'm sorry, Julie, but that is not correct. Crossposting is and has always been part of the design of Usenet. It was designed that way to allow discussions (and even arguments) to happen between groups. Using that design, in and of itself, rude. It is using the Usenet as it was designed to be used. You may not like it. You may not like the groups to which he posted. That does not make his behavior rude either. If the thread is offensive to you (for any reason).... well, that's what filters are for. If you're using MS Outlook Express, you can simply click on Ignore Thread. If he had picked a gazillion unrelated ngs and the thread had little to do with any of the ngs' themes, then you would have a point. This is not the case here. The fact that the groups included may (or may not) have diametrically opposed viewpoints is also irrelevant. If people here only want a select viewpoint to be included in the conversations, then they are using the wrong medium. They should be making use of invitation-only email lists. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada shouldban spanking
Ray Drouillard wrote:
Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten adults. One must only look around to see examples. Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not need is physical assault in the name of discipline. Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our maker gave to us: Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is careful to discipline him. Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of discipline drives it far from him. And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way, nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a little child with rods or anything else. Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol. And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of discipline. Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto himself causes shame to his mother. And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if you use Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend stoning those children to death who remain rebellious. Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to death. Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you advocate everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins when they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that, isn't it. LaVonne |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... Ray Drouillard wrote: Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten adults. One must only look around to see examples. Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not need is physical assault in the name of discipline. Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our maker gave to us: Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is careful to discipline him. Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of discipline drives it far from him. And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way, nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a little child with rods or anything else. Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol. And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of discipline. Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto himself causes shame to his mother. And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if you use Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend stoning those children to death who remain rebellious. Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to death. Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you advocate everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins when they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that, isn't it. LaVonne Again, the term "justify" is used. Do you have to justify eating? Do you have to justify sleeping? You justify bad things, not good things. Discipline is a good thing. Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using that to discredit the Old Testament. The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and leave out a whole lot of details. Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. In the NT, God mad all food clean. The list goes on. So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there. Trying to use that argument is simply silly. Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the above argument: Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the wise advice in Proverbs still stands. Ray Drouillard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canadashould ban spanking
Ray Drouillard wrote: "LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of discipline. Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using that to discredit the Old Testament. What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like or agree with. So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there. City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government buildings. City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city government buildings. Trying to use that argument is simply silly. Attempting to refute as you did is what is truly silly. Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the wise advice in Proverbs still stands. So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? I see nothing in His words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy. In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child. And when his disciplines want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more." I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do, and a lot more respect for little children. LaVonne Ray Drouillard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... Ray Drouillard wrote: "LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of discipline. Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using that to discredit the Old Testament. What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like or agree with. Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to justify your practice of not disciplining your children, Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a willing party to his death. So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there. City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government buildings. City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city government buildings. Interesting theory. Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time. [...] So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? He is God. He can do what he considers to be best. I see nothing in His words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy. Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel regarding child rearing. In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child. Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive. And when his disciplines want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more." Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking? I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do, and a lot more respect for little children. Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that disciplining children is crucial to their development. Ray Drouillard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
A great article on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | February 28th 04 11:27 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... | Kane | General | 2 | December 6th 03 03:28 AM |