Kids should work...

On 3 Dec 2003 17:25:22 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"

snip.............


Rudyard Kipling

The Army

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
peopled.

Kane

Kane, those Afghan muslims do not consider infidels to be people at
all.

Hence skinning, throat slitting, etc. They dispose of infidels as
some
of us would dispose of pigs.

Very possibly.

Good example, eh?

If I want my child to regard other humans as less I need only bear
down on the punishment.


i

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 17:25:22 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

In article , Kane
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 04:49:05 -0600, "Donna Metler"

snip.............


Rudyard Kipling

The Army

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle an' blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I wonder if they were referring to a no-spank culture the women
peopled.

Kane

Kane, those Afghan muslims do not consider infidels to be people at
all.

Hence skinning, throat slitting, etc. They dispose of infidels as
some
of us would dispose of pigs.

Very possibly.

Good example, eh?

If I want my child to regard other humans as less I need only bear
down on the punishment.


i

Kane

Oh, and a point of clarification: not all Muslims use pain based
parenting methods. Want to guess which do?

http://tinyurl.com/xl2v

I do not consider Muslims a monolithic block any more than I would
claim that all Christians eat fish on Fridays.

We have the ignorant, or misled, represented pretty uniformly in all
faiths, races, etc. when it comes to parenting.

Kane

On 3 Dec 2003 14:20:08 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

Child throws a cup around after having been told not to. Cup is taken
away. Is it punishment? Yes, as far as I understand. Is this
punishment directly related to the offense? Yes. Does it model a
typical life situation? Sure. Does it seem reasonable and fair to the
child? Yes.

I don't see taking a cup away when it has been thrown as punishment
because when we did things like that we said *we throw balls not cups*
and explained that throwing cups (or other hard things could hurt
people including the child). It's again, a matter of attitude. Are
you punishing the child for throwing or simply preventing someone
else from getting hurt by his throwing it?

It was a matter of redirection to things the child can do rather than
simply taking away something as punishment. Also, of course,
children grow out of the stage of throwing things if they are allowed
lots of time to throw things that it's ok to throw. Of course, in
some situations, you may have to say, we can only throw the balls
outside, depending on what kind of space you have in the house
or room, but again, I don't think of this as punishment but as an
issue of safety for both the child and others who are in the house.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 3 Dec 2003 14:33:17 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

So, if a child learns that actions have consequences, that
would help him think forward a little bit as they grow up.

Good grief. Children learn that actions have consequences
without any intervention by other humans. When a child
drops something breakable, it breaks and the child learns
that the action of dropping it had a consequence. When
she doesn't eat, she gets hungry, so she learns that the
consequence of not eating is hunger. When he doesn't
go to bed, he gets tired and grumpy, so he learns that the
consequence of not sleeping is being tired the next day.
When she doesn't wear her mittens, her hands get cold,
so she learns that she needs to wear her mittens in the
future. If he is late to school, the teacher may make him
stay after school or he may lose recess time or be
punished in some other way, so he learns that he will be
punished by authorities for certain actions. Some natural
consequences are, of course, too dangerous and parents
try to prevent the child from experiencing those, but
children certainly still learn pretty quickly that actions do
have consequences.

Punishment expresses the power of personal authority.
Punishment is rarely related to misbehavior.
Punishment tells the child he or she is bad.
Punishment focuses on what is past.
Punishment is associated with a threat, either open or
concealed.
Punishment demands obedience.

Positive parenting focuses on the social order. It doesn't
judge the child to be bad, but condemns the action without
condemning the child. And positive parenting allows the
child choices so that s/he can begin to make his or her
own moral judgements about actions. Positive parenting
places the child in charge of his or her own behavior and
requires him or her to be responsible for what s/he does.



Many of us still struggle with the idea that unless we MAKE our kids
do things they will never do anything good but just be bad, lazy,
horrible people. It's simply not true. Kids want to be responsible,
loving, caring people and we need to encourage that but not to
disrupt their natural growth process.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 3 Dec 2003 15:57:27 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

Is it not possible that, like any physical scientist, the destruction
of something is often the study of that object?

The question is what was the purpose. TO study something or just to
annoy me. Was it something that he was told not to touch. etc etc.

Well, for most children, exploration is of primary importance. If
they are doing things just to annoy you, I wonder what you as an
adult did that they need to do that. In general, if they are trying
to annoy you, they probably need attention and have not been able
to get it by their positive actions. For kids, negative attention is
better than no attention. Telling a young child not to touch
something is pretty unproductive too. You need to supervise
his or her touching and to keep him or her away from objects
that s/he can damage when you are not around.

In the case of a child who is destroying things, you need to get him
or her things that he can take apart and study.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 3 Dec 2003 07:37:43 -0800, (Kane)
wrote:

And in any case, it does not hurt to communicate that you are very
upset that your valuable thing is broken.

Actually if the child is young enough and you overload them enough it
can hurt by confusing and frightening them about things they do not
understand. There is entirely enough naturally occuring fright in a
child's life. And it's our job to not add to it but to protect the
child until she is old enough developmentally (has the capacity) to
process whatever is frightening effectively...then lessons can be
taught, and not before...not the lessons one thinks they are teaching.

I don't think it is frightening to a child to learn that his parents
have feelings, Kane. As long as the parent is not trying to make
the child feel guilty or ashamed, the child should know that the
parent has feelings that can be hurt and that there are some things
the parent values that need to be respected.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 3 Dec 2003 16:41:38 GMT, Ignoramus11065
wrote:

Relationship. Are you your child's coach and supporter? Are you
committed to those roles sufficiently to take the time and trouble to
learn what she is ready for developmentally and educationally at any
given point in her progress?

I do not think that taking away a cup which he was using to spill
water everywhere, is going to ruin our relationship. He wants to spill
water, fine, do it in the sink. You want to spill it on the floor, you
get your cup taken away. Is this going to ruin our relationship? I do
not think so.

So rather than removing the cup, bring the child to the sink or
bathtub so he can spill water without making a mess for you to
clean up and simply help him clean up the mess he did make
when he spilled because he was experimenting with the cup and
the water.

In the aggregate, punishment will ruin the relationship. No *one*
incident does it alone, but the attitude it holds - the absolute
exercise of power of the child's life and the insistence upon
blind obedience to your whims most certainly will.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 2 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:15:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 1 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:03:45 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 22 Nov 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:03:50 -0600, toto

wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:18:51 -0800, Doan wrote:

Yep. This is exactly so because all punishments are
essentially
the
same, but positive methods allow for the differences that
parents
see.

Then it should be easy to prove. Again, just put the
alternatives
to
same statiscal scrutiny as with spanking.

Time outs used as punishment are not positive discipline.
Nor is lecturing or scolding or any of the *other* methods that
were studied.

Doan's only argument, of course, will be asking you to provide
citations and data from peer reviewed studies that support:
lecturing;
scolding; *other* methods not working.

Wrong! I am asking for NON-CP alternatives, any non-cp
alternative!

And when offered you lie.

LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)

Since you can't hear me I find that more than little amusing..and in
fact somewhat alarming.

You can hear me then?

LOL! You do understand the difference between "literal" and "figure of
speech"???

If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS
claimed,
why
is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same
statistical
scrutiny???

Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century has
show
repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead end.

So who need science! ;-)

Apparently you don't. I have been asking you for some time now, and
like other claims you've made when challenged, you have failed to
respond.

I asked you for proof, you said you don't need studies. You said it
is "obvious". IS THAT SCIENCE???

I recall Alborn asking to support claims you made long ago that you
simply walked away from.

I've have never walked away from a debate. On the contrary, it is Alborn
who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
afraid of me? ;-)

He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to the
point
he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
"slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports his
argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of
other
evidence that buries him.

Which are????

Read below the next comment.

You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
group turned out to be a group that were spanked???

And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and cited
that
this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a liar,
Doan, which people are tired of humoring.

LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?

Anytime there is more than one person it is appropriate to refer to
"people."

LOL! So you are now speaking for more than one person???

Am I the only one that has pointed out your duplicitious nonsense
then?

You are pointing out your won duplicitious nonsense.

Did I not just call you a liar recently?

Yes. And in doing so, you proved yourself to be not only a liar, but also
a fool! ;-)

Do you need more proof than your misleading statement above, that I am
NOT speaking for people when say people?

Let the "people" who you spoke for speak up! :-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
likelihood
that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that
this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Are you so blind? ;-)

Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group,
where
ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD THE
BEST
BEHAVIOR.

Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)

I've read it from top to bottom. It's you that hasn't...not that you
haven't looked at the words, but you apparently leave some out before
they hit those portions of your brain were reasoning takes place.

Then prove it. Where in the Straus et al (1997) did it say that the
"LEAST SPANKED HAD THE BEST BEHAVIOR"???

If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child is
hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in even
less unwanted behavior?

Nope! You are showing your stupidity again. :-) First and foremost,
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! If you have a trend line of the less
dependent on insulin injection the less diabetic a child is, would that
suggest no insulin would result in no diabete??? Would any parents
spanked their children for good behavior???? You are making the same
mistake that Straus admitted to in 1998. Learn from him, will you?

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Second, the Straus et al (1997) measured CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR from t1 to
t2, not absolute ASB score as in Straus & Mouradian (1998)! Thus, if you
believe the study, the REDUCTION in ASB for the "non-spanked" (56% of
the sample) is a benefit. As Straus et al said:

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Now either Straus is stupid or you are. Which one is it, Kane?


How many times has this been pointed out to you?

How many times do you have to lie? :-)

No, I do not beat my wife, nor have I ever. {-]

Avoiding the question - a sure sign that you lied. ;-)

Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend line
correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing evidence
of
causality. The less spanking the better behavior.

Are you so stupid???

No. Not in the least. Are you to claim I am rather than respond with
what you think supports your position? You babble about the study, you
do not post anything but cherrypicked bits that even then fail to
adequeatly support your claims

I gave you a chance to defend your position. All you can muster is "it is
obvious" and "don't need study"!

Correlation is not causation!

And what did I say above? Did I say there was causality, or did I say
movement toward it by studying the evidence.

And you are lying again. You just said above that less spanking would
"result" in even less misbehavior! You lied and puff about yourself
too much that you can't even keep track?

It is not even
evidence of a temporal order!

Which is a babble, once again, to try and divert from what I actually
said, that you proceeded to lie about...and the evidence lays just a
few paragraphs up from here.

No go hyper and claim I haven't read the studies, now that you've been
caught once again at your nonsense.

I just proved who the real liar is - its you! :-0

Read the studies and learn to respond
rationally, Kane. ;-)

Well, Doan, {-], since you seem to think that the study fails to
establish sequence, that is temporal order, how about YOU showing me
something to support that claim.

Here you go:

[begin include]
The Pediatric Forum - March 1998

Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue
that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships
between spanking and antisocial behavior in children,
such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.
Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
conclusions at all. I believe it is particularly
important to point out these mistakes because they have
become commonplace in the social sciences[3] and it is
important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
in medical research.
One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim
that they are testing for causality with longitudinal
data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from
experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal
data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently
cited as an important aspect of causality.[4]

In longitudinal research, the temporal order between
variables can be known or unknown. For example, the
temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is
clear: sex is most often assigned at birth and heart
disease usually develops in middle or old age. In
contrast, the temporal order between spanking and
antisocial behavior is unknown.

In cases where temporal order is known, standard
statistical methods such as regression models or the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et
al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used
by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a
technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal
order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that
this was not the case and that the coefficients produced
by structural models were essentially meaningless. He
showed that the coefficients produced by structural
analysis are more related to the length of time between
testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a
simulation study that some predictive correlations
changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time
between waves of testing. The problems associated with
structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used
by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated
the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was
the reverse of what was concluded by regression
equations. The primary problem with regression and
structural equation models is that they do not control or
test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that
spanking and antisocial behavior change together over
time and that shorter time intervals are required to
assess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could
be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into
account by the statistical models used by Straus et al
and Gunnoe and Mariner.

Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested
appropriate statistical methods that can be used for
determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For
these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must
be assessed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3]
pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly assess
the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3
time points are required to assess intraindividual
change.

Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables. The study by Gunnoe and
Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does
not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al
did not report whether spanking behavior was assessed at
the last data collection point. To test for temporal
order, each variable would have to be assessed at all 3
points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al
could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal
order.

In sum, no causal or temporal inferences can be drawn
from either Straus et al or Gunnoe and Mariner because
causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data
and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
determine temporal order.

Todd Q. Miller, PhD
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX 77598-1153

References

1. Straus MA, Sugarman DB, Giles-Sims J. Spanking by
parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:761-767.

2. Gunnoe ML, Mariner CL. Toward a
developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental
spanking on children's aggression. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med. 1997;151:768-786.

3. Rogosa D. Myths about longitudinal research. In:
Schaie KW, Campbell RT, Meredith W, Rawlings SC, eds.
Methodological Issues in Aging Research. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Co Inc; 1988.

4. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat
Assoc. 1986;81:945-960.

5. Dwyer J, Feinleib M. Introduction to statistical
models for longitudinal observation. In: Dwyer J,
Feinleib M, Lippert P, Hoffmeister H, eds. Statistical
Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 1992.

6. Kenny DA. Cross-lagged panel correlations: a test for
spuriousness. Psychol Bull. 1975;82:887-903.

7. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Frequency and sequence of drug
use: a longitudinal study from early adolescence to young
adulthood. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:101-120.

8. Miller T, Flay BR. Using log-linear models for
longitudinal data to test alternative explanations for
stage-like phenomena: an example from research on
adolescent substance use. Multivar Behav Res.
1996;31:169-196.

9. Miller T, Volk R. The relationship between weekly
marijuana use and cocaine use: a discrete-time survival
analysis. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5:55-78.

10. Miller T. Statistical methods for describing temporal
order in longitudinal research. J Clin Epidemiol. In
press.

(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152:305-306)



[end include]

I didn't claim one way or another on chronological senquence. You are
stupid enough to think it hasn't that, so show us.

Or is this going to be yet another of your crabwalks?

Nope! Just proving your stupidity, again! :-)

I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry Street
Entry
study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic
responses
of
all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to
neutrality
notwithstanding.

I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to post
the
details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!! I
wonder
why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant information
of
this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us how
many
kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding
factors
were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real
"phony"
is?
:-)

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822


I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study is
not
adequate for your purposes.

What a cop out!

Then you haven't contacted him as I suggested you do to prove his
statements to be incorrect about toddler street entry, or that he in
fact faked the study? Yes, it was certainly a cop out.

You are the one who brought up the study. Why run from it now, Kane?

It's you avoiding the challenge to your claims....that spanking is an
effective method of teaching. I have posted the articles, and I have
posted the quotes of Dr. Embry. So have others.

LOL! You said you have read the study but won't share the details???
Come on, Kane! ;-)

I you believe his study, as he declared its finding, is NOT correct
it's up to YOU to prove it by taking his study apart.

But I can't if I don't have the details. I am asking you for the
details since you said you have read it! Why are you avoiding it?

I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
findings.

IOW, either you lied that you have read it and just parroting what
you read from a www.nospanking.net or it doesn't support your agenda
and you chose to hide it, which is it?

Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
respond.

I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on his
study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You
want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings, but
until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you
are flying.

So you are admitting that you haven't read it???

And, just as I expected, you avoid the challenge YOU yourself posed,
to defend your denial of the results of his study as he was quoted. We
await.

LOL!

hris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and avoided
me at every chance!

How would he "know better?"

His avoidance of you, I suspect, is the wearying nature of your
tiresome twiddle twaddle just as you have run in this post.....the
same old empty head rattling with the same old challenges that have
been met again and again but YOU not meeting the challenges presented
to you.

I did to him what I am doing to you now. ;-) Proving what a fool he is.
I READ the studies he cited; showing him why it is not so when he LIED!
For example, he claimed that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) are not
teenage mothers. I proved to him, with simple math, that they were!
What make him looked foolish is he also claimed to "teach mathematics
at the college level"! :-)

You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study or
not?

Did I not ask you to?

Are you really this stupid??? You haven't read the study and challenged
me to respond??? That is not a fair fight! I can say anything about
the study and you, not having read it, wouldn't know how to respond!

I cited the report on the study in a periodical, quoting Dr. Embry.

I was not citing the study itself. YOU screamed for the study. YOU
provide it or tell us why you can't, or think you can't.

LOL! Don't you want to read from the source and make up your ow mind
or you just prefer to have others do the thinking for you?

Are you not now backing down? All you've done when presented with Dr.
Embry's quoted statements in the past is scream..show me the study.

I haven't back down! As asked for details so that we can discuss it
openly. I just don't see how you can challenge anybody on a study
that you haven't read - stupid! ;-)

You seem to fail to understand if I say I believe the moon is a ball
and you scream "No it's not!" Then it's up to you to prove your claim
it isn't, not mine to prove it is.

Oops! Logical flaw again. :-) Actually, the way logic work is that
if you claim that the moon is a ball, the burden of proof is on you.

At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)

Why sure, blatherer, I still want you to respond to the Embry study.
Why have you once again avoided answering the question asked?

I am still waiting for the details of the Embry Study. Can anyone provide
the details of this study???

Are you trying to tell us there is no Embry study? He faked it? Come
on, boy, hit those keys harder and tell us what you think.

I am asking for details so that it can be discussed openly. Do you or
anyone who cited it, have it?

And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to the
needs
of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental level.

The devil is in the details.

That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond, "It's
history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?

Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands.

Not at all, just inappropriate ones. Someone presents some
information. You scream, "show me the study" when that is not what was
offered.

So I should just believe????

You apparently can't find it yourself and think no one else can. And
that you can prove it incorrect if you do. Any time now, Doan, any
time.

I can't find it yet that is why I kept on asking for its source for years!
Can anyone provide it? Chris, LaVonne??? ;-)

I should
just accept it base on faith, right Kane???

No.

If you don't believe what Dr. Embry related in the article that quoted
him YOU tear the study apart. I only quoted the article and him.

I can't make an informed decision if there is nothing there! How do you
know if the article is true?

I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0

My, what an outburst. Now if I had done that you'd claim it was
because I was a non-spanked child, now wouldn't you.

I am just a mirror; what you see is your own reflection! ;-)

Since you only know though if YOU were spanked or not in childhood
this leaves you with a terrible logical dilemna, now doesn't it?

Nope! The only "dilemna" is for the anti-spanking zealotS since over
90% of the US populations has experienced spanking personally, they
see right through the "bull****" that the anti-spanking zealotS spewed.

show me how
your theory work in real life situations.

You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers I've
worked at. I await your arrival.

Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
publish your results?

Give me an address and contact number to mail to and call.

I used my real email address and contact infor. You have already digged
it up yourself! ;-)

We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls.

Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has been
dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on CP
as
a threat.

Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf

"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

I didn't make a claim that violent crime by youth was down, or didn't
you notice.

HAH! HAH! HAH! I guess violent crime is not crime, right?

And I certainly don't believe that arrests are a proper subject for
policy or law related to juveniles. I'd say CONVICTIONS tend to be
more accurate. You got the CONVICTION RATE somewhere, Doan?

Why don't you provide that data to support your claim, Kane? It is on
the same website!

"arresst rate" (sic) Funny about that. Did they make the error or did
you as you tried to play with the data?

The typo is mine. How does that affect the data?

Juvenile "violent crime rate" is not the juvenile "crime rate" or is
that a bit over your head? I said crime rate. Go look up page.

Why don't you look it up, Kane. It is on the same website. It is time
for you to back up your claim.

I've noticed you see only that which you wish.

I provided you with concrete data that contradicted your claim. You, on
the other hand, offered NOTHING to support your claim.

To that problem of yours I offer this:

1967 and the years before and around it were not considered a prime
reporting methodology period. In fact, as the impact of computers and
their proliferation in government increased, much reporting and
tabulation was vastly improved and incidences of all things being
counted tended to show rapid increase.

And your souce is???

Would you say that was because there WAS more, or there was MORE
tabulated more rapidly, thus being more accurately reported?

Nope! Computers only help them tabulate faster not more accurate.
Stop your "bull****"!

In 1967 it was difficult to find any computer outside a mainframe
connected workstation and at that many card readers and tape punchers
were still in use. That's how primative things were.

I know. I work inside computers back then, standing upright. That's
how large they had to be. A computer was a room.

In 1990 I walked into a government office to discuss how they could
best use the what we'd now call a primitive database they wanted
developed for their applications...I had been more accustomed to the
business world where it still wasn't all that common for every person
to have a computer on their desk, but I was stunned to see three
floors of employees with 300 workers in that building with only ONE
personal desktop and ONE operator and NO backup for the operator OR
the computer per floor. One to a hundred ratio.

1990...and no, not a typo. That was a state office. I was instrumental
in getting computers on every four workers desks, then every two, and
finally everyone...but it took four years to do that, and they have
not really caught up IT wise to the business world.

You just cannot think outside the box, can you Doan?

Everything you find that disagrees with you you shut down and
ignore...let us say stupidily rather than dishonestly (my first guess
though)... and go for the gusto.

Hell, one still has problems collecting crime data. It was discovered
a few years back that cops were routinely tabulating any beef they
went out on as "firearms" related if someone three floors up being
questioned responded to that first question cops rightly like to ask,
"do you have any weapons on your or in the house, guns, etc.?" with a
"Yes."

Try this:

http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/pu...imeUpdate2.pdf

Notice the difference between Crime and Violent crime reported.

Why did you avoid, or were unable to find, that even the Violent crime
rate had gone up to a 1988 high and dropped since with a peak but a
return in recent years to the 88 level...and that only the Violent
crime while all juvenile crime dropped, with no peaks.

Show me the data!

Why, I wonder did you pick 1967 to begin..hmmmm, I just can't figure
it out...why so far back...hmmmm... Oh well one day I shall penetrate
the inscrutable gentleman and his reasoning...won't I?

Why can't you provide any data to support your claim?

Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go.

About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were adjudicated,
that
is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration. I
not
only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive methods
of
any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore teens
and
mentally ill teens.

As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other
practitioners
were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading
everywhere
even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with moving
children back into their homes and our of encarceration with lower
ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not
allowed.

LOL! You are not puffering, are you?

Are you?

Of course, not! I don't claim to have a Ph.D., teach math at college
level, member of MENSA.... ;-)

What is the recidivism rate?

In 1986 when I left treatment work the adolescent's I worked with had
a 15% recidivism rate. Interestingly the most damanged by psychiatric
evaluation (that's not psychological, but neurological testing by MDs)
showed the best progress of all.

They had been, because of the more extreme behaviors, more extremely
dealt with CP wise before coming to us. Gentle support and training,
re-parenting if you will, had a profound effect on them, though they
held on to their more unpleasant survival behaviors bit more
tenaciously and for a longer period.

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do CP
anyway and get away with it.

Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
you don't want that, right? ;-)

On the contrary. I celebrate the human spirit in that they don't ALL
turn into "Enron Executives."

I just prefer not taking those kind of risks, what with how 95% or so
of humans treat each other. Me, I prefer hanging out with the 5%. Very
peaceful and joyfilled.

BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many
means
outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait inordinately
to
go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and no,
I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my
post)
for long periods of time.

LOL!

Isn't it nice when we can have a good laugh together? {-]

THOSE are allowed.

Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)

Absolutely. Not only protested, but put my job and career on the line.

And when I was used, after a 3 month successful demonstration project
with only my own clients, to instruct other treament personnel in how
to deal with what became formerly difficult children some of those
people cried when they got the point. How cruel it had been to hurt
children to force them to comply...and I didn't do anything other than
teach the methods I knew.

And your proof is?

Their response was spontaneous.

Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of the
cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can be
applied without striking.

In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked
with
was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those that
took
the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the
board
of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.

WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it, Kane.
What is the recidivism rate before and after?

See up page.

You said fifteen - before and after?

Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use SOME
rational means of teaching their children then spanking somehow
is
a
positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult Mentallity.

I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS
like
Straus used!

Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?

LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)

How did you decide that my calling you a name excused you from
answering the challenge you yourself posed?

Because you just lost all credibility! Because it showed your true
character! Besides, what challenge???

We know, but I'm curious if you do.

Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for
the
social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address
nice
nice issues. Monies come to study harm.

You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because it
generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the
funding
agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove your
contention.

Funny, Straus
If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week is
a
benefit!
The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.

No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
spanking is less effective then a little spanking.

The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I
notice
more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and can
survive
a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course; for
the
child to just survive.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp
cultures
"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)

Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully in
a
sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only
don't
they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to see
if
they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams are
as
important to the process as the adults.

I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a hundred
years.

"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share their
dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when you
look at what happenned to them the last time they told their secret?"

and
"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has
taken
liberties witht the small amount of information available on the
tribe
and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject
and
make your own decisions."

Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)

No, the Senoi did. And you seem to be unaware of the last sentence.
But then you yourself are something of a liberty taker.

That there are few left and or their denial might be product of their
gentleness? Hmmm...you really do stretch, don't you.

You did say they "survived"???

Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and
punishes
that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and
murder,
and low child abuse rates.

There's a good boy.

Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)

Sure, no problem.....R R R R R (because I know you DIDN'T or you'd
never have been so stupid as to post such a challenge...wait...I'm
wrong, you've been just this stupid before).

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

I know how hard a time you have seeing what you don't want to see so
go to the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, squint real
hard, and read it out loud...no LOUDER, dummy.

Now I have a problem with government self reporting...they did declare
a blip in one part of their article (I won't call it a report), but
had to get honest at the bottom of the page, so let's look further,
shall we.

Ah, here's one...and not that since 1984 they haven't counted children
16 years of age and up as juveniles...yet the juvenile crime rate
trended upward pretty steadily.

Gosh, I thought caning solved that kind of problem in Singapo
http://reference.allrefer.com/countr...gapore162.html

Note the following from the article:

"In 1984, few juveniles were charged with committing serious crimes.
Juveniles were involved in no murders, 8 percent of the sexual
assaults, and 10 percent of the armed robberies.
"
And of course we know the draconian inforcement that goes on from then
to the present yet, we have:

"Police solved 18 percent of the almost 23,000 reported cases of
theft, and juveniles were believed to be responsible for 12 percent of
these crimes."

Finally, Doan, are you going to keep citing a country that is a
dictatorship under the same ruler, "Goh Chok Tong, who became the
country's Prime Minister in 1990, succeeded Lee Kwan Yew, creator of a
concept of "Asian values" opposed to "Western democracy." Mr Goh is
also the leader of the People's Action Party-Singapore's ruling party
for the past 43 years-which relies on the infallible support of both
private and state-controlled press groups. "This ultra-sophisticated
dictatorial regime," as one opponent puts it, allows its inhabitants
to access foreign media, but the local press rarely prints news about
the country's situation. Some Internet sites, maintained by the few
remaining independent journalists, are striving to freely inform the
public at the risk of being sued for libel, or imprisonment."

Yes, canning has created a paradise of crime free streets and homes.
Except for the crimes committed by the government.

Tell that to the Singaporeans! ;-)

Did you know it is illegal to chew gum or possess it in Singapore
without a prescription?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ngapore%22+gum

Sure I do. Didn't they just allowed chewing gum now?

I wonder if they cane for one flavor, and hang you for another.

For such a crime free nation the police department web site sure has
an intersting crime watch page:

http://www.spf.gov.sg/

Have I mentioned you are stupid?

And you have been wrong! ;-)

And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension
and
in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I
offer
this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain some
of
the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.

Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children
for
centuries and it worked" bull****.


http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf

Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain and
believe! ;-)

Do you really believe that science is a fact based institution?

I think so!

It's as much a religion as any other. Grow up.

I believe! I believe! ;-)

If it were truly fact based and had been we would find NO scientific
knowledge challengable any more.

Huh?

Is that the case?

Well, findings on spanking by social scientists would, I think, fall
under that same caveat.

You are free to believe what you want; just don't jam it down our throats!

Doan

So tell us, Doan, what's your scientific opinion on the question you
still haven't answered.

Scientifically, and logically, where is the transition point from non
abusive CP to abusive injury? Not the end points, that you rely on so
heavily to support and apologize for spankers with, but the middle or
whever you wish to claim you place it.

It falls under the "reasonable standard"!

You know, that old spanking vs beating question, like "if you anti
spanking zealots can't tell the difference", and "logic, the anti
spanking zeolots...etc.," as YOU CAN answer for us?

Cough it up, dummy.

It already has been answered, stupid! ;-)

Doan

Kane

So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I think
that you have been asked a valid question:

Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?

It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.

Just where does the boundary lie?

It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the same question
in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the line?

Doan

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:24:05 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 2 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:15:47 -0800, Doan wrote:

snip..... count and counter point....the meat is below. .


And when offered you lie.

LOL! And when you openned your mouth you lied. :-)

Since you can't hear me I find that more than little amusing..and
in
fact somewhat alarming.

You can hear me then?

LOL! You do understand the difference between "literal" and "figure
of
speech"???

I take it you find it humorous when someone else takes up your hobby
of playing with others words?

If spanking is as bad as you and the anti-spanking zealotS
claimed,
why
is it so hard to find an alternative that stood the same
statistical
scrutiny???

Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too
obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century
has
show
repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a dead
end.

So who need science! ;-)

Apparently you don't. I have been asking you for some time now, and
like other claims you've made when challenged, you have failed to
respond.

I asked you for proof, you said you don't need studies. You said it
is "obvious". IS THAT SCIENCE???
Let's settle this "science" question. I know you won't remember, but
just for old times sake:

When science finds the ultimate answer, and the facts are all in, and
nothing changes, no new discoveries in a field, you'll let us know,
right?

So, to move on: I said, as you place in quotes, "obvious?'

That couldn't be taken out of context could it now? YOU, our
scientific maven slip up like that?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaww...couldn't happen. {:-]}


Here's what I actually said:.
Because what works does not have to studied. It is far too
obvious.
The observations of child behavioralists for the past century
has
show repeated the how punishment, and most especially CP is a
dead end.

I take it you won't take observations as relevant? Okay, suit
yourself, but I won't take science as the final answer on human
behavior, though I have noticed your avoidance in the discussions on
brain scan findings and learning. Why is that I wonder...I mean, it's
really scientific and all.

I recall Alborn asking to support claims you made long ago that you
simply walked away from.

I've have never walked away from a debate.

R R R R R

On the contrary, it is Alborn
who walked away FOR MONTHS! The same with LaVonne. Why are they so
afraid of me? ;-)

I skipped ahead, looking for an answer to my challenge to you,
regarding your claim that we the anti-spanking zealots can't tell the
difference between spanking and beating. Of course that's never really
been the question...the question has always been and will always be,
where is the line crossed when a spanking becomes ABUSE.

And what did I find...............Your little bushy tail disappearing
down the hole you usually keep your head up.

Don't skip ahead folks. It's more fun to watch him, as usually, go as
far afield as possible (to long timers, Yes, it the same **** he
always spews when cornered) to divert from the essential question he
was asked.

It's called fogging, as in smoke and mirrors...and one of the lamest
attempts at an appeal to authority by a "researcher" that pretty
clearly has an agenda Doan is in love with. This "peer" review was so
good it's never been published by anyone but Xerox.


He has used the infamous logical fallacy for years here (to
the
point
he has bored his opponents to the point of ignoring him) of
"slanting," that is picking only the evidence that supports
his
argument (the declaration by Straus) and ignoring all mass of
other
evidence that buries him.

Which are????

Read below the next comment.

You meant like Straus et al (1997) in which the "no-spank"
group turned out to be a group that were spanked???

And then you've gone on, taking his honesty, and lying, and
cited
that
this SPANKED group in fact showed worse behaviors. You are a
liar,
Doan, which people are tired of humoring.

LOL! You are speaking for the "people"?

Anytime there is more than one person it is appropriate to refer to
"people."

LOL! So you are now speaking for more than one person???

Am I the only one that has pointed out your duplicitious nonsense
then?

You are pointing out your won duplicitious nonsense.

Did I not just call you a liar recently?

Yes. And in doing so, you proved yourself to be not only a liar, but
also
a fool! ;-)

Do you need more proof than your misleading statement above, that I
am
NOT speaking for people when say people?

Let the "people" who you spoke for speak up! :-)

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the
likelihood
that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent
that
this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Are you so blind? ;-)

Not in the least. Are you? In an obviosly punitive parent group,
where
ALL actually spanked, as Strauss found, the LEAST SPANKED HAD
THE
BEST
BEHAVIOR.

Are you so stupid or you are just too lazy to read the study? ;-)

I've read it from top to bottom. It's you that hasn't...not that
you
haven't looked at the words, but you apparently leave some out
before
they hit those portions of your brain were reasoning takes place.

Then prove it. Where in the Straus et al (1997) did it say that the
"LEAST SPANKED HAD THE BEST BEHAVIOR"???

If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child
is
hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in
even
less unwanted behavior?

Nope! You are showing your stupidity again. :-) First and foremost,
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! If you have a trend line of the less
dependent on insulin injection the less diabetic a child is, would
that
suggest no insulin would result in no diabete??? Would any parents
spanked their children for good behavior???? You are making the same
mistake that Straus admitted to in 1998. Learn from him, will you?

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems
lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents
use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily
show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in
reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Second, the Straus et al (1997) measured CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR from t1
to
t2, not absolute ASB score as in Straus & Mouradian (1998)! Thus, if
you
believe the study, the REDUCTION in ASB for the "non-spanked" (56% of
the sample) is a benefit. As Straus et al said:

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood
that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that
this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for
children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of
children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently."

Now either Straus is stupid or you are. Which one is it, Kane?

You. Pretty simple huh?

Do you really think anyone fell for it the first time you tried that
nonsense?

Now I have to give you an English lesson as well as lesson in ethical
posting? sigh I am getting tired. I think I better understand Chris'
choice to sit back and relax and watch you chase your tail up your own
silly asshole, but shucks, I got a minute or two to waste.

"no-spanking group includes occasional spankers"

Let me explain this to you vis a vis my use of the word "least." If
you have a group, say of children, and you have a frequency and
interval of an action upon them, those at the top of the measurement
are the most acted upon, and those at the bottom, as in "but do so
only infrequently" then you have some, even if only one, that is the
least acted upon.

Or do you see this differently and insist that I only quote and not
discuss with my own choice of words, or do wish me to use other words
to mean the same thing the study says, or is it that you are
desperately grasping at anything that will keep others, and possibly
yourself, from seeing what a bogus little twit you are?

My vote? "Twit."


How many times has this been pointed out to you?

How many times do you have to lie? :-)

No, I do not beat my wife, nor have I ever. {-]

Avoiding the question - a sure sign that you lied. ;-)

Your question was, "How many times do you have to lie? :-)"

Answering your question as posed requires me to first presume I am
lying. Since I am not then your question is itself a lie by
presumption.

Never had anyone respond to the old wife beating ploy, have you,
nummy?

So if you insist, stupid little monkey, on an answer:

I do not lie, hence I don't need to calculate the times I have.

Now what did that get you but a masturbatory flush of excitement of
making someone respond to the stupidest thing you could think up to
avoid the issues being presented.

Care to announce a win yet? You usually do about along here.

Is it too hard to understand that if you have a downward trend
line
correlated to a single constant you have obvious growing
evidence
of
causality. The less spanking the better behavior.

Are you so stupid???

No. Not in the least. Are you to claim I am rather than respond
with
what you think supports your position? You babble about the study,
you
do not post anything but cherrypicked bits that even then fail to
adequeatly support your claims

I gave you a chance to defend your position. All you can muster is
"it is
obvious" and "don't need study"!

You did not offer a chance to defend. You questioned something you
think there is no study on.
You also posed, along with your dip**** authority an accusation that
cannot be answered because an "experiment" cannot be conducted
legally, or ethically, on living humans in CP research. It must be
impirical.

On the other hand that leave YOU up **** creek because YOU cannot
produce a study that refutes the use of non cp methods as well.

Hence we have to rely on the impirical, and the logical. Mine tells
me, given the mountains of impirical material I have read, and done my
own first hand observations in prisons and youth mental health
settings, as well as more limited observations in adult mental health
settings (out patient with CMI folks), that the risk of using CP is
too great....and will be until you can give us the definitive data on
what is and what isn't an abusive CP.

Or, when does spanking become beating. I loved our answer by the way.
I predicted it nicely back channel to a couple of folks that need to
know about you.



Correlation is not causation!

And what did I say above? Did I say there was causality, or did I
say
movement toward it by studying the evidence.

And you are lying again.

Oh, by stating a trend line suggests closer odds of there being
causality?

How would that be a lie? Or you are referring to something else?

You just said above that less spanking would
"result" in even less misbehavior!

I did? Well the only place I used the word "result," I did not say "in
less misbehavior."

I said, and I quote from the message with my attributes intact:

If you have trend line of less unwanted behavior the less a child
is
hit would that not suggest that even less hitting would result in
even
less unwanted behavior?

I didn't that it would result, only asked the question of you if the
trend line did not indicate that. Once again you have avoided
answering, so tedious of you, the question posed.

But I'm a patient Sensei, and I'll ask you again, but in a form we can
all sigh hope will discourage yet another weasel answer:

Is there a trend mentioned in the Strauss quote you provided?

Is it down toward less us of CP as stated?

Is there less ASB mentioned of that group of less spanked?

And finally, if the answer to any of these of "NO!" by you, then
please explain.

If all your answers are yes, then would that not suggest that even
less hitting would result in even
less unwanted behavior?

The question, Doan, answer the question. Or I'll have to "run away"
like others finally had to do, in exhaustion and disgust at your
debate by immense cartloads of **** posting.

You lied and puff about yourself
too much that you can't even keep track?

What would be my lie in asking a question?

Questions aren't lies unless you can show them to be rhetorical. While
I might agree with the trend of both and the possible outcomes, I am
asking YOU a genuine question I want and answer to.

What I figure at this point is you've amply proven you can't or won't
answer questions as asked, or you think the answer you gave to my
spanking vs abuse question is actually an answer at all.

It is not even
evidence of a temporal order!

Which is a babble, once again, to try and divert from what I
actually
said, that you proceeded to lie about...and the evidence lays just
a
few paragraphs up from here.

No go hyper and claim I haven't read the studies, now that you've
been
caught once again at your nonsense.

I just proved who the real liar is - its you! :-0

Prove your proof, given that I didn't make a claim about Strauss, nor
say you said anything you didn't, I simply asked a question.

It is lying to take words out of context ("result") and claim a lie
thereby when I'd didn't claim a result, only asked a question with the
word result in the string of words.

Now who is trying to deceive here, Doan? The answer to that classic
truth or lie question is the one you cannot answer truthfully.

Nor have you for years in this ng.

Read the studies and learn to respond
rationally, Kane. ;-)

Well, Doan, {-], since you seem to think that the study fails to
establish sequence, that is temporal order, how about YOU showing
me
something to support that claim.

Now watch him smile and spring what he thinks was his well concealed
semantic trap.

Here you go:

[begin include]

I shall comment throughout. And note before we start that they author
makes a claim that the study failed to answer questions......NOT EVEN
ASKED. That is the same common tactic of you, Doan. Hardly what I
was call an objective peer review.

The Pediatric Forum - March 1998

Drawing Conclusions About Temporal Order

Now watch the bull**** pile up.

Two recent articles published in the ARCHIVES[1,2] argue
that they have found evidence for "causal" relationships
between spanking and antisocial behavior in children,
such that increased spanking causes antisocial behavior.

I have had a lot of trouble finding references anywhere to Strauss
claiming he had found Causal relationships. You, Doan can find them
for me. Can't you? Or did he, like I, being honest, point to the ODDS
of such occurring?

Unfortunately, their methods do not allow for such
conclusions. In fact, their methods do not allow for any
conclusions at all.

Allow for no conclusions at all? Wouldn't you say that is just a tad
hyperbolic?
Could this academic have an..................agenda?

I believe it is particularly
important to point out these mistakes because they have
become commonplace in the social sciences[3]

Well they would be if social science did a lot of research on the
under his criteria, which of course is ethically impossible to do with
living humans, and probably animals.
and it is
important that these mistakes do not become commonplace
in medical research.

Notice, just like Doan, a segue into a diversion. The issue isn't
"medical research." It's social science research...which has to be by
survey and empirical observation. Hence it would be foolish to even
claim causality, except to account for it and negate the effects in
the study subjects...which I do believe Strauss did, or those that
honestly reviewed his work did.

One initial mistake made by both authors is the claim
that they are testing for causality with longitudinal
data.[1] Causal inferences can only be drawn from
experiments.[4] What can be tested for with longitudinal
data is temporal order.[5] Temporal order is frequently
cited as an important aspect of causality.[4]

Look at the twisting. Every researcher hopes to find causality and it
would be stupid to NOT so design the study, (expect more, accept less
is the concept) but in social science (and in many others) it's
obviously not very likely to occur. How many scientists have seen the
nucleus
of an atom? The presence of atomic particles is still inferred by
their effect on their environment.

They leave tracks.

It is just so with social science. Actions upon the individual do or
don't leave tracks and assumptions can be drawn.

In longitudinal research, the temporal order between
variables can be known or unknown. For example, the
temporal order between sex and risk of heart disease is
clear: sex is most often assigned at birth and heart
disease usually develops in middle or old age. In
contrast, the temporal order between spanking and
antisocial behavior is unknown.

In cases where temporal order is known, standard
statistical methods such as regression models or the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach chosen by Straus et
al[1] can be used. Structural equation modeling, as used
by Gunnoe and Mariner,[2] was originally thought to be a
technique that can be used for ascertaining temporal
order.[6,7] Unfortunately, Rogosa[3] demonstrated that
this was not the case and that the coefficients produced
by structural models were essentially meaningless. He
showed that the coefficients produced by structural
analysis are more related to the length of time between
testing than to the actual data and demonstrated in a
simulation study that some predictive correlations
changed from 0.5 to -0.5 depending on the length of time
between waves of testing. The problems associated with
structural analysis also apply to the ANOVA approach used
by Straus et al. Miller and colleagues[8-10] demonstrated
the same problem hypothesized by Rogosa with actual data.
They found in 3 studies that actual temporal order was
the reverse of what was concluded by regression
equations. The primary problem with regression and
structural equation models is that they do not control or
test for concurrent change. Thus, it is possible that
spanking and antisocial behavior change together over
time and that shorter time intervals are required to
assess any temporal order.[10] Any variation that could
be ascribed to concurrent change is simply not taken into
account by the statistical models used by Straus et al
and Gunnoe and Mariner.

In other words, he is suggesting, since the criteria cannot be met in
the real world, that research cease until it is the same as the
medical research model. That's nice.

Dywer and Feinleib[5] and Miller[10] have suggested
appropriate statistical methods that can be used for
determining temporal order with longitudinal data. For
these methods, both spanking and antisocial behavior must
be assessed at 3 or more time points. As Rogosa[3]
pointed out, it takes 3 time points to correctly assess
the trajectory of a single subject. Therefore, at least 3
time points are required to assess intraindividual
change.

So, a researcher, Strauss, does his observations, and makes his
methodology available and the reviewer decides that someone else's
model should have been followed. But we don't even know if it's a
tested model, or just something Rogosa is pointing out.

Straus et al had 3 waves of data, so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables.

Whoa...what did I just read. The premise of the title then does not
apply to Strauss et al, but it does to Gunnoe and Mariner, so because
they had some similar results Strauss is now out of the running for
credibility of his study, or do I misunderstand?

Does this kind of babbling strike anyone as familiar?

The study by Gunnoe and
Mariner had only 2 waves of data, so their design does
not allow determinations of temporal order. Straus et al
did not report whether spanking behavior was assessed at
the last data collection point.

Excuse me. If they said there was a collection point, what were they
doing at it, picking Daisies?
What a crock of Doan familiar ****.

To test for temporal
order, each variable would have to be assessed at all 3
points. Therefore, it is unclear whether Straus et al
could have conducted an analysis to determine temporal
order.

Oh, now it's suddenly not a real problem, but just "unclear"

In sum, no causal

That's right. And in medicine that is often the bottom line. In social
science it's a goal rarely attained but often strived for.

I have notice that green apples are not red, so green apples are not
apples, more than once myself.

To continue: from above: "no causal

or temporal inferences can be drawn
from either Straus et al

That is not what the writer said earlier. This is a classic Doan Self
Sabotage:

so they may have been
able to conduct an analysis that could determine temporal
order between these variables.

Oh, then it's none but may have been. I see.

or Gunnoe and Mariner because
causal inferences cannot be drawn from longitudinal data

And causal relationship was pointedly shown not to be the outcome of
the Strauss study

and inappropriate statistical methods were used to
determine temporal order.

According to someone that "pointed" claiming HE had the only
methodology for this kind of study...but this is a medical researcher
talking.

Todd Q. Miller, PhD
Preventive Medicine and Community Health, K53
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, TX 77598-1153

I write these folks often. Many of the folks I contact I ask if I can
quote. When they see what kind of pondscum hang out here with their
logic and thinking errors they ask me not to. I wonder why?

Let's see if this one will. We'll have a little discussion in another
discipline that is very important for researcher and any academic:
Semantics.

In the mean time let me direct you to a much more thorough and
thoughtful treatment by academics of at least the stature of the good
Dr. above...possibly even mo

Some academics that understand what they are reading and tell the
truth about it...they did a survey of the study in question. The only
mention of "causality" is to control for it not to claim Strauss
claimed it existed:

(And no, it's too long to post here, but not too long for a leisurely
pleasant, but to you agonizing, read.)

http://csde.washington.edu/pubs/wps/99-6.pdf

snip...just the references from the wonderful doctor that claimed
Strauss didn't stick to the medical standards
methodology....apparently forgetting social science isn't medicine.
Strauss couldn't beat his subjects to an experimental standard.

You people...geez.

I didn't claim one way or another on chronological senquence. You
are
stupid enough to think it hasn't that, so show us.

Or is this going to be yet another of your crabwalks?

Nope!

What does "Nope!" mean to you? It is the sound of claws on sand to me.
Your proof is crap. Tones of it, not by the content as much as by the
inference of something being in the study under consideration that was
never part of the study.

Just proving your stupidity, again! :-)

Ah, you are late with your usual declaration of "I win" again.

Slowing down, Doan, at your age?

I've never seen him, for instance, respond to the Embry
Street
Entry
study with anything but the usual blind hysteria neurotic
responses
of
all his pro spanking buddies, his phony declarations to
neutrality
notwithstanding.

I have! I have asked Chris when he mentioned this study to
post
the
details of this study so we can learn from it. HE REFUSED!!!
I
wonder
why. I am now asking you. Can you post the relevant
information
of
this study so we can all take a look at it? Can you tell us
how
many
kids were studied? What the methodology is? What confounding
factors
were controlled for? Come on, Kane. Show us who the real
"phony"
is?
:-)

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available
at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822


I am not challenging his study YOU are. You tell him his study
is
not
adequate for your purposes.

What a cop out!

Then you haven't contacted him as I suggested you do to prove his
statements to be incorrect about toddler street entry, or that he
in
fact faked the study? Yes, it was certainly a cop out.

You are the one who brought up the study. Why run from it now, Kane?

You are the one that brought up a challenge of the "study." I brought
up the article quoting Dr. Embry and citing the study. If you wish to
refute the article you may do so. You may even aske me to defend the
article. But on the study, just produce it and take it apart.

If you can't that's okay. We won't laugh, out loud.

It's you avoiding the challenge to your claims....that spanking is
an
effective method of teaching. I have posted the articles, and I
have
posted the quotes of Dr. Embry. So have others.

LOL! You said you have read the study but won't share the details???
Come on, Kane! ;-)

I you believe his study, as he declared its finding, is NOT correct
it's up to YOU to prove it by taking his study apart.

But I can't if I don't have the details. I am asking you for the
details since you said you have read it! Why are you avoiding it?
I am not avoiding, you are. I quoted the article. A google will turn
up that article in about three different places and other mention of
it in as many more.

I am under no obligation to go beyond pointing to Dr. Embry and his
findings.

IOW, either you lied that you have read it

I didn't say I had read the study. I said I had read the article, and
I have, as everyone here, has access to the posted copy of it.

You attacked it back when Chris posted and demanded he produce the
study itself. He asked you to if you wished to attack it.

It's a debating given, that if you attack something you must either
attack what is available, or you must produce more. Chris wasn't
attacking YOUR attack, just asking you to go ahead and do what you
wanted to do, have at the study.

and just parroting what
you read from a www.nospanking.net or it doesn't support your agenda
and you chose to hide it, which is it?

People frequently post the commentary and opinions of others to
support their agenda here, or did you miss your own above?

You have the strangest logic, Doan. I almost think I can hear, "The
Buddha Would Understand," just like that South Vietnamese police
captain answered the photographer right after he was pictured blowing
the brains out of bound captive in the streets of Saigon.

I studied Buddhism for a very long time, and I found no support for
that statement, and I've been posting and following net protocols for
a long time and nowhere does it say, "you must defend our claim
against my attack by presenting the details."

It's up to YOU to provide the details you wish to attack, or attack
what was offered...the conclusions that Dr. Embry shared in his quotes
in the magazine articles.

Just as I expected, you haven't read the study and can't
respond.

I never stated that I had read it. I've only quoted the article on
his
study and cited his quotes in that article as to his findings. You
want the study, you are free to get it and challenge his findings,
but
until then, you are obviously flapping your arms and pretending you
are flying.

So you are admitting that you haven't read it???

The study? Of course. I had no idea that you wanted me to read the
encylopedia Brittanica if I see it quoted and list it my quote for you
to read here. If you want to attack Dr. Embry's study, be my guest.

I even did your work for you in looking him up. Write, email, walk
over. What ever suits you.

You have a University library handy. I don't. Yet you think I should
go an climb the stacks for you.

You are a bum, Doan, and not a very complex one at that.

And, just as I expected, you avoid the challenge YOU yourself
posed,
to defend your denial of the results of his study as he was quoted.
We
await.

LOL!

So, if you can find something in his study that refutes his statements
in the article, be my guest. I didn't post those statements for
anything but your education. Now continue it and stop weaseling.

Deal with the article, or deal with the study. I didn't not present
the study, YOU challenged it.

Go for it, weasel.

hris Dunga pulled the same trick years ago. He would tell
people to go to the library instead. He now knows better and
avoided
me at every chance!

How would he "know better?"

Odd, you didn't answer this question of mine. I thought you'd be
slavering over it. You do want to answer it don't you?


His avoidance of you, I suspect, is the wearying nature of your
tiresome twiddle twaddle just as you have run in this post.....the
same old empty head rattling with the same old challenges that have
been met again and again but YOU not meeting the challenges
presented
to you.

I did to him what I am doing to you now. ;-)

Tiring me on a dual channel, laughter, and load carrying your bull****
for you?

Proving what a fool he is.
I READ the studies he cited; showing him why it is not so when he
LIED!

Ah, gosh, we were talking about the Embry study. You claimed you
bested him about it. Now suddenly we are over to Straus again, with
you citing nonsense claims that aren't supported by the evidence you
provide. And I can't produce what doesn't exist to refute what doesn't
exist...well aren't you the master debater?

For example, he claimed that the mothers in Straus et al (1997) are
not
teenage mothers. I proved to him, with simple math, that they were!
What make him looked foolish is he also claimed to "teach mathematics
at the college level"! :-)

Did he accept your claim when you proved it? Did he attempt to still
claim they weren't teenagers when they gave birth? Were they still
teenagers during the study period?

Did he try to refute that?

No, Doan, you have amply demonstrated that if you can find a single
error you will milk it for years, more especially everytime YOU are
cornered and can't answer challenges to your stupid claims.

You are a few years late and a bunch of brain-cells
short! ;-) Do you really wanted me to respond to the Embry study
or
not?

Did I not ask you to?

Are you really this stupid???

No. But you are, still.

You haven't read the study and challenged
me to respond???

I did not quote the study. I quoted the article that quoted Embry's
comments and conclusions.

That is not a fair fight! I can say anything about
the study and you, not having read it, wouldn't know how to respond!

Really? Do you think I'm reading impaired? Are you afraid that you I
might think you are lying? All you have to do, since YOU are
rightfully the one that has to produce the study is point me to it
whenever you wish to support your claims against it or for it.

I cited the report on the study in a periodical, quoting Dr. Embry.

I was not citing the study itself. YOU screamed for the study. YOU
provide it or tell us why you can't, or think you can't.

LOL! Don't you want to read from the source and make up your own mind
or you just prefer to have others do the thinking for you?

I did not ask for anyone to do my thinking. I asked for you to respond
to your challenge of the report by citing it, quoting it, and
generally conducting yourself like a sane, and honorable person. I
can's say about the first, but the latter is obvious. You dishonor
yourself and your ancestors.

Are you not now backing down? All you've done when presented with
Dr.
Embry's quoted statements in the past is scream..show me the study.

I haven't back down! As asked for details so that we can discuss it
openly.

And you aren't able to look up the study? If you aren't you may say
so, then we can get back to the issue. I quoted Embry's conclusions. I
think we can discuss them without his study, but if you wish the study
to be part of our discussion you are free to quote it.

How is it you found the Strauss study and reference frequently but you
want to challenge the Embry study but cannot bring yourself to find
it?

I just don't see how you can challenge anybody on a study
that you haven't read - stupid! ;-)

I'm not.

Where did you see me challenge you on the Embry study that you haven't
produced. I merely quoted the article. YOU CHALLENGED THE STUDY,
DUMMY.

You seem to fail to understand if I say I believe the moon is a
ball
and you scream "No it's not!" Then it's up to you to prove your
claim
it isn't, not mine to prove it is.

Oops! Logical flaw again. :-) Actually, the way logic work is that
if you claim that the moon is a ball, the burden of proof is on you.

Opps! No it isn't. It's just a statement. I can chose to defend it or
I can choose not to. The instant you challenge me.

At that point, if I don't respond, you can give up and ignore me or
you can look for and present evidence of your claim it isn't round.

Notice, I just looked into the night sky, said it round. Take it or
leave it. When you ask me to prove it, my response is, why? I'm not
planning a moon trip.

At least you are consistent - consistently stupid that is! :-)

Why sure, blatherer, I still want you to respond to the Embry
study.
Why have you once again avoided answering the question asked?

I am still waiting for the details of the Embry Study. Can anyone
provide
the details of this study???

If you are going to challenge it, can you not?

If not why not?

Are you trying to tell us there is no Embry study? He faked it?
Come
on, boy, hit those keys harder and tell us what you think.

I am asking for details so that it can be discussed openly. Do you
or
anyone who cited it, have it?

I do not have it. I had he article and quoted it. I will happily
debate you on the content of the article. YOU brought up the study as
a challenge, dummy. I brought up the article as a challenge.

Stop playing at being stupid.

And all "positive discipline" really is is just teaching to
the
needs
of the child, and her actual capacities at developmental
level.

The devil is in the details.

That's right and until you can show us the details, beyond,
"It's
history" aren't you bit embarrassed to be making such demands?

Right, Kane. ;-) How aweful of me to be making demands.

Not at all, just inappropriate ones. Someone presents some
information. You scream, "show me the study" when that is not what
was
offered.

So I should just believe????

No. Go study the study if you wish, or remain ignorant. Deny the
article if you like.
But don't challenge the study I have not directly quoted. Or call Dr.
Embry and challenge HIM. He made the claims. I merely repeated, and
CITED HIM CORRECTLY. If you think I cited him inaccurately we have a
debate.

If you claim his study is not correct, we have a debate when you
produce it. And that will not then be on the magazine article.

You apparently can't find it yourself and think no one else can.
And
that you can prove it incorrect if you do. Any time now, Doan, any
time.

I can't find it yet that is why I kept on asking for its source for
years!
Can anyone provide it? Chris, LaVonne??? ;-)

Let me see now. You haven't been able to find it but you cry out for
others to, yet there is Dr. Embry's address in the post I sent.

I think you are a coward, and YOU won't call or write, and you won't
challenge him.

But just to show you I ca

I invited you before to contact professor Embry. He is available
at
Dr. Dennis D. Embry
P.O. PAXIS Institute, 31475, Tucson, AZ 85751
520-299-6770
520-299-6822




I should
just accept it base on faith, right Kane???

No.

If you don't believe what Dr. Embry related in the article that
quoted
him YOU tear the study apart. I only quoted the article and him.

I can't make an informed decision if there is nothing there! How do
you
know if the article is true?

Well the article is easily available on the web. I just googled it
again. Is it too much to ask of you that YOU google it this time? Read
it, tell us what you think, and if you want to find out if the claims
of Dr. Embry are supported by his study, call and ask him, or write.

I am a pragmatic person,

Bull****. You are an emotional blind man from your childhood
experience of shame from being whipped by your parents.

LOL! And your mouth is spewing "bull****"! ;-0

My, what an outburst. Now if I had done that you'd claim it was
because I was a non-spanked child, now wouldn't you.

I am just a mirror; what you see is your own reflection! ;-)

Alert, Alert!!!! School yard chant ploy.

"I'm rubber, you're glue, What every you say bounces off me and sticks
to YOU YOU YOU"

Now wasn't that a cute little Doanish ploy?

Since you only know though if YOU were spanked or not in childhood
this leaves you with a terrible logical dilemna, now doesn't it?

Nope! The only "dilemna" is for the anti-spanking zealotS since over
90% of the US populations has experienced spanking personally, they
see right through the "bull****" that the anti-spanking zealotS
spewed.

I presume, though you present little evidence, that you have some
capacity for cause and effect reasoning.

If you think this country and the world is in great shape, raise your
hand and slam yourself in the head with it, you need to wake up.

If you think spanking for a couple of thousand years has produced the
wonders we experience, consider: there is much we could do without.

Science isn't produced by punishment to motivate...though I think your
mileage may differ...and our postings reflects that amply.

But there just might be a tiny connection between the horrors we visit
on each other daily and the thousands of years we have done so, and
using pain to raise children.

Now please, ask me to provide scientific proof. We haven't had a good
laugh since a few paragraphs up.

show me how
your theory work in real life situations.

You will have to come here and accompany to treatment centers
I've
worked at. I await your arrival.

Good. Give me an address and contact number. Better yet, why not
publish your results?

Give me an address and contact number to mail to and call.

I used my real email address and contact infor. You have already
digged
it up yourself! ;-)

Why would I "already digged it yourself" if you use your addy here?

Are you smokin' anything boy?

You just want mine so you can play games with it, hacker. Don't kid
me.

We have a large population
of kids in juvenile halls.

Yes, though juvenile crime is somewhat down these days and has
been
dropping the rising tide of parenting methods that do no rely on
CP
as
a threat.

Are you so stupid as to make such claim? Show me a graph of the
juvenile crime rate from 1960 on, Kane. Try this, Kane:
http://www.fbi.gov/Cius_97/97crime/97crime5.pdf

"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

I didn't make a claim that violent crime by youth was down, or
didn't
you notice.

HAH! HAH! HAH! I guess violent crime is not crime, right?

So, you wish to separate violent crime out, but you don't honestly say
so, you simply lie about what I said.

Do you EVER post honestly? Geezz I hope your mother doesn't have web
access.


Why would you separate out violent crime from other crimes when we are
discussing crime? The question is, does CP increase the incidence of
all juvenile crime. Not just violent crime alone.

And the answer is?

And I certainly don't believe that arrests are a proper subject for
policy or law related to juveniles. I'd say CONVICTIONS tend to be
more accurate. You got the CONVICTION RATE somewhere, Doan?

Why don't you provide that data to support your claim, Kane? It is
on
the same website!

If you have a claim to make why don't you make it? The same website is
available to you or anyone. If you think there is data to support you
and refute me, quote it.

I posted the URL as I always do, so that people WILL go and look for
themselves. There is rather a lot there that shoots our monkey ass
down, Doan.

The URL is right up there bubba. You too lazy to go and read?

"arresst rate" (sic) Funny about that. Did they make the error or
did
you as you tried to play with the data?

The typo is mine. How does that affect the data?

If you keyed in the data rather than cut and paste, the odds of there
being an error increase strongly. You do make a lot of typos, we all
do.

So, is the data correct or not, and if so point me to the source. The
specific spot so I can point out that you once again took it out of
context.

Or, stop asking me to chase YOUR tail. I won't go where you go for it.

Juvenile "violent crime rate" is not the juvenile "crime rate" or
is
that a bit over your head? I said crime rate. Go look up page.

Why don't you look it up, Kane. It is on the same website. It is
time
for you to back up your claim.

Aaaah, what was this?

"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

The charts on the page show the rises and dips and they shoot you
down, and graphic charts are not allowed here, they are binaries.

That is another reason I gave the URL...so people could look at the
charts. Can you read charts boy?

I know you've seen them, that's why you are playing about with your
devious weasel ****.

You are pretending there might not be anything there to refute you so
the readers might not go look.

You are in trouble in two ways with that ploy. One is that folks are
accustomed to you lying, not me, hence they are more likely, even
without looking (which annoys me, but what the hell) to believe me and
not you.

So I strongly urge them to be fair to you and go check it out and see
if your claim that crime is down in Singapore, as I presume you wish
us to believe, because of their draconian CP enforcement, or were you
just referring us on for the commercial opportunities?

I've noticed you see only that which you wish.

I provided you with concrete data that contradicted your claim. You,
on
the other hand, offered NOTHING to support your claim.

Ah, what was this?
"The violent crime arresst rate for the total juvenile population
show an increase of 143 percent from 1967 to 1996. Though the
juvenile male violent crime rate expanded by 124 percent from 1967
to 1996, the juvenile female arrest rate is nearly triple that
figure, 345 percent."

You pointed to Singapore as an example, and I presume you weren't
suddenly changing sides and offering them up as a horrible example of
spanking gone wild (caning), but rather than you felt crime was down
there.

What did we find, then. The more violent the punishment the higher
the crime rate went, did it not?

This post is where we started as I recall, you are exchanging with
Toto:

Toto:
Children learn what they live. If you treat a child with
punishment and harsh discipline as a toddler, expect to have this
returned 7 fold when he is a teenager.

Doan:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

And a later challenge to me in another post:

The best country in the world. God bless the USA! ;-)
BTW, how high is the crime rate in Singapore, Kane9. See, how stupid
your claim is! ;-)
Which "claim," that CP does not equate with lower crime rates?

My response is, it's not low in Singapore.
And I've posted both the evidence and the citation to the cite.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

If you have evidence other wise, please post it. A drop along a line
from 67 to 99 does not constitute low crime rates today. Only that
there was a dip. Hey! For all you know the Rattan crop was bad that
year and there's a correlation with less Rattan, less crime.

To that problem of yours I offer this:

1967 and the years before and around it were not considered a prime
reporting methodology period. In fact, as the impact of computers
and
their proliferation in government increased, much reporting and
tabulation was vastly improved and incidences of all things being
counted tended to show rapid increase.

And your souce is???

I don't have a "souce"

Are you pretending that what I said above isn't common knowledge?

If that's so, then we have apparently gone into the IT age with no
reason whatsoever.

Hand in your ID, take you little lunch bucket and go home.

Just how stupid are you, Doan.

Is it possible that you think you've won something by asking me to
prove what doesn't exist. If I say there are few tabulations then than
now I would have to go a back and visit every source and collect them.

Or does the logic that having more speed and greater storage now then
we did not compute for you with we have MORE now than we could
possibly collect then, no matter how much existed?.

Would you say that was because there WAS more, or there was MORE
tabulated more rapidly, thus being more accurately reported?

Nope! Computers only help them tabulate faster not more accurate.
Stop your "bull****"!

Dear me, then all things being equal, nor more accuracy then as there
is now, the volume would be the key now wouldn't it?

Or are you willing to notice and accept that you just said the data is
not relevant.

If you are going to accept the BULL**** YOU OFFER to me by way of
numbers about Singapore crime rates among juveniles, then why then
would my numbers be less acceptable to YOU?

In fact you are so full of **** when you open your mouth and hit the
keys the word "Bull****" falls with great validity.

In 1967 it was difficult to find any computer outside a mainframe
connected workstation and at that many card readers and tape
punchers
were still in use. That's how primative things were.

I know. I work inside computers back then, standing upright. That's
how large they had to be. A computer was a room.

In 1990 I walked into a government office to discuss how they could
best use the what we'd now call a primitive database they wanted
developed for their applications...I had been more accustomed to
the
business world where it still wasn't all that common for every
person
to have a computer on their desk, but I was stunned to see three
floors of employees with 300 workers in that building with only ONE
personal desktop and ONE operator and NO backup for the operator OR
the computer per floor. One to a hundred ratio.

1990...and no, not a typo. That was a state office. I was
instrumental
in getting computers on every four workers desks, then every two,
and
finally everyone...but it took four years to do that, and they have
not really caught up IT wise to the business world.

You just cannot think outside the box, can you Doan?

Everything you find that disagrees with you you shut down and
ignore...let us say stupidily rather than dishonestly (my first
guess
though)... and go for the gusto.

Hell, one still has problems collecting crime data. It was
discovered
a few years back that cops were routinely tabulating any beef they
went out on as "firearms" related if someone three floors up being
questioned responded to that first question cops rightly like to
ask,
"do you have any weapons on your or in the house, guns, etc.?" with
a
"Yes."

Try this:

http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/pu...imeUpdate2.pdf

Notice the difference between Crime and Violent crime reported.

Why did you avoid, or were unable to find, that even the Violent
crime
rate had gone up to a 1988 high and dropped since with a peak but a
return in recent years to the 88 level...and that only the Violent
crime while all juvenile crime dropped, with no peaks.

Show me the data!

Go look. I'm not your servant.

What is this, a "stupidity exhaustion" ploy. Are you going to post
this idiocy forever?

http://www.education.pitt.edu/ocd/pu...imeUpdate2.pdf

And what do you think I was showing you in the paragraph above your
demand?

What a stupid little boy.

Why, I wonder did you pick 1967 to begin..hmmmm, I just can't
figure
it out...why so far back...hmmmm... Oh well one day I shall
penetrate
the inscrutable gentleman and his reasoning...won't I?

Why can't you provide any data to support your claim?
I do not jump to your command any longer because just as Chris found,
and LaVonne has found, and Alborn has found, infact anyone you pretend
to debate with has found, the instant the DO provide you with data
that refutes our nonsense YOU RUN "bawk bawk bawk bawk."

And either start playing, "let's split hairs over word meanings like
‘least' instead of admitting I made myself an ass yet again," or "I
won, I won, I won" declarations that are in fact lies.

As you can see the URL I cited is to a PDF file. The PDF file I
referenced I am not going to reproduce in full. The sources they use
are cited properly and can be referenced. YOUR challenge YOU go read
them.

And figure from now on YOU are doing your own research. I'm not
playing "jump through the hoops" with you any longer you asinine
little prick.

Let's try your "positivie discipline" there
first and see how it go.

About half the mentally ill teens I worked with were
adjudicated,
that
is assigned to treatment by the court in lieu of encarceration.
I
not
only got to "see how it go" I made it go myself. Punitive
methods
of
any kind showed that they were next to useless with hardcore
teens
and
mentally ill teens.

As more and more of the staff adopted my methods (other
practitioners
were of course knowledgable so the methods were spreading
everywhere
even as I was demonstrating them) the rate of success with
moving
children back into their homes and our of encarceration with
lower
ricidivism rates it was enough to convince us that no punishment
methods worked, and as you say below, were we were CP was not
allowed.

LOL! You are not puffering, are you?

Are you?

Of course, not! I don't claim to have a Ph.D., teach math at college
level, member of MENSA.... ;-)

That's nice. Who has? And what has that to do with my question? I only
asked if you are puffering. A simple yes or no would suffice.

What is the recidivism rate?

In 1986 when I left treatment work the adolescent's I worked with
had
a 15% recidivism rate. Interestingly the most damanged by
psychiatric
evaluation (that's not psychological, but neurological testing by
MDs)
showed the best progress of all.

They had been, because of the more extreme behaviors, more
extremely
dealt with CP wise before coming to us. Gentle support and
training,
re-parenting if you will, had a profound effect on them, though
they
held on to their more unpleasant survival behaviors bit more
tenaciously and for a longer period.

However I'll tell you how the stupid such as you managed to do
CP
anyway and get away with it.

Yup! 98% percent of college freshmen and 95% of professional. But
you don't want that, right? ;-)

On the contrary. I celebrate the human spirit in that they don't
ALL
turn into "Enron Executives."

I just prefer not taking those kind of risks, what with how 95% or
so
of humans treat each other. Me, I prefer hanging out with the 5%.
Very
peaceful and joyfilled.

BTW, corporal punishments are not allowed in
juvenile halls! ;-)

R R R R ... very funny. Pain can be applied, blindman, by many
means
outside the usual definition of CP. Being made to wait
inordinately
to
go to the bathroom. Refusing to allow one to visit with parents.
Forcing to stand or sit in painful uncomfortable positions (and
no,
I'm not giving a laundry list with pigs such as you reading my
post)
for long periods of time.

LOL!

Isn't it nice when we can have a good laugh together? {-]

THOSE are allowed.

Really? And you didn't protest???? ;-)

Absolutely. Not only protested, but put my job and career on the
line.

And when I was used, after a 3 month successful demonstration
project
with only my own clients, to instruct other treament personnel in
how
to deal with what became formerly difficult children some of those
people cried when they got the point. How cruel it had been to hurt
children to force them to comply...and I didn't do anything other
than
teach the methods I knew.

And your proof is?

And yours that I didn't is?

When you are going to refute someone, Doan, do so on the evidence
offered. Point by point.

You and I both know no one can reproduce the events I listed. They are
not recorded. In fact if they were I could not show them by law.

You are disgusting.

Their response was spontaneous.

Then there is that infamous "safety holds" issue. Watch some of
the
cop shows on TV. You'll see demonstrations of how much pain can
be
applied without striking.

In my case what instituted a major change in the agency I worked
with
was my refusal to teach holding techniques, especially those
that
took
the client to the floor, and after a month of rangling with the
board
of directors I won the argument. Immediately behaviors improved.

WOW! They should show that on 20/20! :-) Again, publish it,
Kane.
What is the recidivism rate before and after?

See up page.

You said fifteen - before and after?

After. Before it as closer to 80% back into juvenile lock up and about
35 % for more mental health treatment from relapse.

Believe it or shove it. You never provide actual supporting evidence
when asked to, and rarely even any evidence at all...you avoid the
question continually. The little you do provide is NOT even supporting
you. And you deny it, with words right in front of you telling you you
are full of ****. .

Doan seems to think that because those that spank also use
SOME
rational means of teaching their children then spanking
somehow
is
a
positive factor in learning. Talk about Cargo Cult
Mentallity.

I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS
like
Straus used!

Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?

LOL! How did my "asshole" get to your mouth? ;-)

How did you decide that my calling you a name excused you from
answering the challenge you yourself posed?

Because you just lost all credibility!

Losing credibility with a known public liar is a blessing from above.

Because it showed your true
character!

So, what is the character of someone that calls a liar an asshole? I
notice you had no trouble insulting me with the same word.

So, tell me again about character and credibility?

Besides, what challenge???

"I want to use the same measurements that anti-spanking zealotS like
Straus used!"

To which I replied:

"Then, asshole. DO IT. who's stopping you?"

You want every one else in the world to do the work you are too
stupid, lazy, and dishonest to do, and I just challenged you to do
what you said you wanted.

Another language lesson for the terminally stupid, or the clever
monkey that thinks he can, when he has nothing else, defeat the
opponent by exhaustion with an overload of Doan stupidity.

We know, but I'm curious if you do.

Funding might be a bit hard to come by. There is very little for
the
social sciences that can be directed to and funded that address
nice
nice issues. Monies come to study harm.

You know that, I know that, and I know that you know, so your
disengenuous crap of asking for what cannot be produced because
it
generally is NEEDED RESEARCH in the eyes of the public or the
funding
agency officers is an escape hatch when YOU are asked to prove
your
contention.

Funny, Straus
If the reduction antisocial behaviors is a benefit than
Straus et al (1997) showed that spanking less than once a week
is
a
benefit!
The cargo-cult mentality is not subjecting the non-cp
alternatives to the same statistical scrutiny.

No, it is not. What IS cargo cult mentality is claiming the NO
spanking is less effective then a little spanking.

The only reason children turn out as well as they do (and I
notice
more than a few don't) is that humans are so resiliant and
can
survive
a lot of trauma. I don't consider that parenting, of course;
for
the
child to just survive.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that few of the non-cp
cultures
"survived"! Can you you name a non-cp culture? ;-)

Yep. Several. The Senoi, SE Asian culture. The exist peacefully
in
a
sea of brutality among people that DO use punishment. Not only
don't
they but they have custom of reviewing dreams each morning to
see
if
they will influence the days decisions. The children's dreams
are
as
important to the process as the adults.

I understand they haven't had a murder or suicide in over a
hundred
years.

"There are very few Senoi left, and those that are, don't share
their
dreams, or deny that they ever did. But, who can blame them, when
you
look at what happenned to them the last time they told their
secret?"

and
"Although in 'The Dreamkeepers: Saving the Senoi', the author has
taken
liberties witht the small amount of information available on the
tribe
and their customs, we encourage you to explore more on the subject
and
make your own decisions."

Look like you believe in dreams, Kane. ;-)

No, the Senoi did. And you seem to be unaware of the last sentence.
But then you yourself are something of a liberty taker.

That there are few left and or their denial might be product of
their
gentleness? Hmmm...you really do stretch, don't you.

You did say they "survived"???

Of there are more than two, then "they" survived. I understand there
are many more than two. We do not know if disease took the others,
neighboring wars, or the mountain blew up. Their number isn't relevant
to their quality of life, the subject of spanking or not.

Now it's your turn. Provide me with a culture that SPANKS and
punishes
that is peaceful by nature, has low rates of violent crime and
murder,
and low child abuse rates.

There's a good boy.

Try to look at Singapore, Kane. :-)

Sure, no problem.....R R R R R (because I know you DIDN'T or you'd
never have been so stupid as to post such a challenge...wait...I'm
wrong, you've been just this stupid before).

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

Now how is it that you asked the very question earlier, yet you had to
have read this...as it is attributed as existing when you asked the
question, a post back. Notice you are single attributed in this post,
that is a double attribution of my answer..BEFORE YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION.

And yet, with it in the post, and getting to this point in the reading
AFTER you asked, you now pass it by like it doesn't exist. No
response.

Would you care to explain how you can ask a question, have it answered
then fail to respond to it?

Could it be the source shows our are full of **** on the Singapore
issue....?



I know how hard a time you have seeing what you don't want to see
so
go to the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, squint real
hard, and read it out loud...no LOUDER, dummy.

Now I have a problem with government self reporting...they did
declare
a blip in one part of their article (I won't call it a report), but
had to get honest at the bottom of the page, so let's look further,
shall we.

Ah, here's one...and not that since 1984 they haven't counted
children
16 years of age and up as juveniles...yet the juvenile crime rate
trended upward pretty steadily.

Gosh, I thought caning solved that kind of problem in Singapo
http://reference.allrefer.com/countr...gapore162.html

Note the following from the article:

"In 1984, few juveniles were charged with committing serious
crimes.
Juveniles were involved in no murders, 8 percent of the sexual
assaults, and 10 percent of the armed robberies.
"
And of course we know the draconian inforcement that goes on from
then
to the present yet, we have:

"Police solved 18 percent of the almost 23,000 reported cases of
theft, and juveniles were believed to be responsible for 12 percent
of
these crimes."

Finally, Doan, are you going to keep citing a country that is a
dictatorship under the same ruler, "Goh Chok Tong, who became the
country's Prime Minister in 1990, succeeded Lee Kwan Yew, creator
of a
concept of "Asian values" opposed to "Western democracy." Mr Goh is
also the leader of the People's Action Party-Singapore's ruling
party
for the past 43 years-which relies on the infallible support of
both
private and state-controlled press groups. "This
ultra-sophisticated
dictatorial regime," as one opponent puts it, allows its
inhabitants
to access foreign media, but the local press rarely prints news
about
the country's situation. Some Internet sites, maintained by the few
remaining independent journalists, are striving to freely inform
the
public at the risk of being sued for libel, or imprisonment."

Yes, canning has created a paradise of crime free streets and
homes.
Except for the crimes committed by the government.

Tell that to the Singaporeans! ;-)

You challenged with a claim that Singapore has lower crime rate based
on the use of CP (or did you not?) And that is all you have to say,
when I show you the quality of life there, and the actual crime that
goes on their reported by Singapore?

By the way, I have visited Singapore and I have had business
associates who trade there with me, in two different fields, and they
have a comment on that. ..... they hate it and the dictatorship, but
they have family there and are invested in the country and just can't
leave. Check out the amount money a Singaporan can take out of the
country without government approval.

As usual, you ran. You can't handle being defeated. 1

Did you know it is illegal to chew gum or possess it in Singapore
without a prescription?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ngapore%22+gum

Sure I do. Didn't they just allowed chewing gum now?

No, not without a prescription from the last I heard. That was about a
year ago I spoke by phone with friends there. The Tsien family.
Course you wouldn't know them, as that is one of the biggest family
names in China.

I wonder if they cane for one flavor, and hang you for another.

For such a crime free nation the police department web site sure
has
an intersting crime watch page:

http://www.spf.gov.sg/

Have I mentioned you are stupid?

And you have been wrong! ;-)

And you are stupid to think you aren't stupid. You make mistakes that
are so obvious that your attempts at deviousness have a huge sign
pointing to them.

Do you think you invented logical fallacy debating?

And for the edification of those with more reading comprehension
and
in the spirit of educational responsibility for the ignorant I
offer
this interesting history of child rearing that helps explain
some
of
the compulsive slavish support of violence on children.

Some of that wonderful, "but parents have spanked their children
for
centuries and it worked" bull****.


http://www.nopunish.net/PWP.pdf

Yup! Who needs science when you can just stop using your brain
and
believe! ;-)

Do you really believe that science is a fact based institution?

I think so!

Sure you do. Because they say so....then a few years go by.

Then what happens, Gallileo?

It's as much a religion as any other. Grow up.

I believe! I believe! ;-)

Yes, blindly, and ignorantly. Unable to fathom that science changes
things, and it's changing the issue of CP.

However, I think you are either blind again to what you don't want to
see, or you are lying. I vote for the latter.

You are the doofus that tries to defend CP on the grounds that it's a
long tradition that has proven it self, yet you wish to argue using
science. Both ways? Hmmmm....

Science, those experiments and observations you so desperately try not
to see, is proving you wrong...that there IS harm in CP, is gonna
getcha child. .

If it were truly fact based and had been we would find NO
scientific
knowledge challengable any more.

Huh?

I see. You believe facts are mutable. I thought so. Or you think that
we have to believe because a scientist said so, more than we can
believe by other evidence, like our own empirical observations.

Please clarify, I could be wrong.

Is that the case?

Well, findings on spanking by social scientists would, I think,
fall
under that same caveat.

You are free to believe what you want; just don't jam it down our
throats!

That does not answer the question I posed about science, which you
left up a couple of sentences, unanswered, as usual.

And debating it isn't jamming it down your throat, oh little
threatened one. You do not have to believe. We won't put a curse on
you. And honest, we can't reach through the monitor.

But...

LAW will jam it down your throats eventually as it has in 24 states,
and 11 or so countries, those few of you too savage to overcome your
hysterical blindness and your apologetic defense of your own sad
experience being parented with pain.

It's all right I tell you. Your parents did the best they knew how and
their culture told them. They loved you Doan, honest.


Doan

So tell us, Doan, what's your scientific opinion on the question
you
still haven't answered.

Scientifically, and logically, where is the transition point from
non
abusive CP to abusive injury? Not the end points, that you rely on
so
heavily to support and apologize for spankers with, but the middle
or
whever you wish to claim you place it.

It falls under the "reasonable standard"!

I'm sorry. That is a weasel answer. You ARE the weakest link.

But then, you can always let go of your reliance on weasel words and
define a "reasonable standard," adhering of course to your criteria of
"scientific." After all, we anti-spanking zealots are obviously less
scientific that you....R R R

We can't tell spanking from beating, right?

The "standard" please, in detail you say we can't provide, and we
assume you mean YOU can.

So far you aren't going to cost me a dime for dinner. I bet my wife,
she didn't know of course, that if you had a reasonable answer to "the
question" I'd take her out for a dinner where the chef is E'cole
trained.

The question, if you have forgotten is very important. We, the anti
spanking zealots do not want children deliberately damaged physically,
emotionally, or psychologically by their caregivers. So it is very
very very important, assuming you do not either, you nice little man
you, hence we have two alternatives:

Ours, which is to not use CP and as little punishment as possible
(something we zealots find out goes with no using CP, and;

Yours, which is to determine what is and isn't abuse in the spanking
to abuse spectrum.

So you'll have to be a tad more specific....R R R R (you are getting
cuter by the day)...than "reasonable standard" as an answer.

Can you see just how utterly foolish you look?

You know, that old spanking vs beating question, like "if you anti
spanking zealots can't tell the difference", and "logic, the anti
spanking zeolots...etc.," as YOU CAN answer for us?

Cough it up, dummy.

It already has been answered, stupid! ;-)

"Reasonable standard" is the answer?

I'M stupid? R R R R

I have been so stupid that I've known all along there IS no rational
answer, nor has there ever been on nor will their be one, to the
question, "what is spanking and what is abuse and were is the line" so
I chose NOT to take a risk by spanking or even using punishment
deliberately in parenting.

You can make vague statements, that few agree one from the spanking
side, about what is and isn't spanking vis a vis abuse, but you cannot
show where one passes into the other.

Hence it becomes obvious to rational people that the risk of injury is
extremely high if one uses CP at all. In fact charges are frequently
brought of abuse against parents that claim they were only "spanking"
that resulted in physical and certainly psychological injure to the
victim.

No one knows where the line is. I just loved watching you squirm on
your own petard though. Thanks...or do you think you can answer the
question? R R R R

The best of all reasons not to spank?...the risk is simply too great.

I'M stupid?...sure, Doan

I'm also about to go tell my wife she has to buy me dinner, and if she
argues I'll just show her your post.

Doan

Kane