What makes no-spank so unstable?

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and more
and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year decline
in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it look
otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to violent
victimization.

Hahaha! Violent crime peaked in 1994!
A slight upward trend in an overall downward decline since 1973. Like I
said, 3 decades. Downward. Use the entire span. Now you are OBVIOUSLY
lying, as no one in their right mind could miss the entire chart end to
end from 30 years back.. Or could you be THIS stupid?

Hahaha! So we have spanked our kids the most in 1994?

The behavioral outcome effects of spanking often don't take place for
many years. 0:-

1994 - 1973 = 21 years, STUPID! Yes, you claimed that it has been
downward for 30 years! COULD YOU BE THIS STUPID?

Just how stupid are you?

Hahah! I just proved how stupid you are! Shall I ask Chris? ;-)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Either you are very STUPID or just a very bad LIAR!
Apparently you can't read charts, either. Check what I actually said and
what the chart shows.

It did NOT rise to previous levels and that was part of a continuing
downward trend. Just how stupid ARE you Doan.

Starting in 1973 about 44 per 1000, in 1981 a slight rise to 46, with
dips along the way. 86 a dip to 41, then a short sharp increase in 91,
close to the 81 levels, and a steep decline from there to 2004 of only
about 20 per thousand.

So what does this have to with spanking, STUPID?

You forgot already? It's a the top of this post and presumably what your
first, and continuing responses are addressing. He

"We live in a country were, with a reduction in school paddlings and
more and more support for NOT spanking children, we enjoy a 30 year
decline in violent crime, schools, despite the media trying to make it
look otherwise, are the safest place for children when it comes to
violent victimization.

The decline is only since 1994. And it has nothign to do with spanking,
STUPID. I just love it when anti-spanking zealotS like you tried to
fit the anti-spanking square peg into the reality round-hole! ;-)

This does not include children under 12 either.

I HOPE NOT! ;-)

Which reduces your claim that violent crimes against children has gone up.

And where did I made that claim, LIAR?

Even child abuse numbers have a downward trend.
You notice I said "trend" and not 30 years.

Yup! "trend" as you said. ;-)

Yep...and numbers don't reflect trends. Not if you leave out the
variable "population." RATES are what DO reflect trends more accurately
if charted.

and rates come from the numbers, STUPID!

National Child Abuse Statistics
Child Abuse Fatalities by Year

In 2003: 1,500 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (4.11)

In 2002: 1,400 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.84)

In 2001: 1,300 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.56)

In 2000: 1,356 children as a result of child abuse and neglect (3.72)

In 1999: 1,396 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.82)3

In 1998: 1,144 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.13)3

In 1997: 1,221 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect
(3.35)3

In 1996: 1,185 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.25)

In 1995: 1,215 children died as a result of child abuse & neglect (3.33)

"Died" is only one form of violence to children.

Hahaha! This is the same one that the anti-spanking Dr. Durrant used to
claim that child abuse in Sweden has gone down! Her problem that her
numbers didn't even reached statistical significant! Are you SO STUPID?
;-)

You seem to be struggling to keep up here, Doan.
Why is that I wonder?

I can't help myself from laughing at your STUPIDITY! ;-)


Oops! More lies:
Yes, you certainly don't ever run out of them. This is NOT a rate chart
and includes abuses that are NOT violent crimes.
* There have been substantial and significant increases in the
incidence of child abuse and neglect since the last national incidence
study was conducted in 1986.
Where's the rate per K?

See above!

"Died" is not the only form of violence crime with child victims. You
seem to be completely losing track now. You used to be able to build
your lies without totally ignoring the poster's statement.

Hahaha! The liar here is YOU!

You must be slipping.

Hihihi!

* Under the Harm Standard definitions, the total number of abused and
neglected children was two-thirds higher in the NIS-3 than in the NIS-2.
This means that a child's risk of experiencing harm-causing abuse or
neglect in 1993 was one and one-half times the child's risk in 1986.
Neglect is not a "violent crime" for data collection purposes. You are
in my field of expertise, Doan. And wrong.

* Under the Endangerment Standard, the number of abused and neglected
children nearly doubled from 1986 to 1993. Physical abuse nearly doubled,
sexual abuse more than doubled, and emotional abuse, physical neglect, and
emotional neglect were all more than two and one-half times their NIS-2
levels.
Emotional abuse is not listed as a violent crime anywhere. Nor is neglect.

* The total number of children seriously injured and the total number
endangered both quadrupled during this time.
Notice it says total number seriously injured? I said abuse. And abuse
is more than just serious injury. Just how stupid are you.

With out the rate this means little.
Source:
http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/stat...3.cfm#national
Rates, dummy. Rates.

Here is the 12 - 17 age violent crime victim rates. There is a current
upswing. Cause unknown at this time. I suspect changes in reporting
method....just as the DOJ chart you offered shows...they have switched
over during this time period and are mixing two methods.

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/beh4.asp
"Child stats" is drawing their figures from FBI-DOJ data.

"According to reports by victims, in 2003 the serious violent crime
offending rate was 15 crimes per 1,000 juveniles ages 12?17, totaling
375,000 such crimes involving juveniles. While this is higher than the
rate in 2002, it is a 71 percent drop from the 1993 peak."

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/i...timization.cfm
"Violent Crime Victimization
View as PDF (Best for Printing)

Headline

Violent crime victimization among adolescents has declined by more than
half since the early 1990s. Between 1994 and 2004, the victimization
rate declined for adolescents ages 12 to 15 from 118.6 per 1,000 to 49.7
per 1,000. For youth ages 16 to 19, the rate declined from 123.9 per
1,000 to 45.9 per 1,000. (See Figure 1) "

There some nice breakouts that do indeed strongly support my claim that
something significant are happen in the lives of these children that is
reducing violence rates so drastically.

I contend it's more and more children being treated respectfully. In
fact the teens being point out here would be among the first
beneficiaries of the reduction in school paddlings starting many years
back.

And those NUMBERS of child abuse victims you want to count.....

http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm
"More than 60 percent of child victims experience neglect. Almost 20
percent are physically abused; 10 percent are sexually abused. (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children &
Families, Child Maltreatment 2002 ? 2004)"

So you have to reduce the NUMBER by 60%, hysterical dancing screeching
monkeyboy.

Yup! and only 20% were due to physically abused, STUPID!

Which means, just as I claimed, the rate of violence to children has
gone down. For you see, the population of children has not changed, or
it has gone UP. The rate, if you remove all those children NOT victims
of violence crime (as the data shows above) then you have automatically
reduced the rate against the total population of children.

Not for 30 years, STUPID!


Doan
Next stupid claim please.

The proof is when you look into the mirror, STUPID! ;-)

Not unless you are standing next to me, "proven stupider than usual in
this post."

I can't stand next to you, STUPID! ;-)

R R R R R

Doan

Doan loses yet again, but declares himself the winner. Just like the
child he still is.

GROW up! ;-)

Doan

Hihihi! A perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy turned out! And
this is also a perfect example of the debate tactic of the anti-spanking
zealotS. When they ran out of arguments, they resorted to cursing like
a lowly educated street thugs. Yet, Prof. LaVonne still called this
character a "gentleman"! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

What's the matter stupid little boy. You stuck dumb by being so
fuggering dumb?

You have run your ****olla out here for years, the same kind of low
grade schoolboy bs that passes for "thought" that idiots use.

You are nothing but scum, boy.

Scum.

You have NO arguement, just bull****.

You indulge in word tricks when asked questions because they confound
and astound you.

You are stupid. A child. Dumb as a stump.

And a confirmed and constant liar.

When challenged you dodge and claim YOU challenged demanding the
callenger answer YOU as though you are anything more that a stupid
bull****ting asshole.

YOu have nothing now, you had nothing in the past. Your function, even
by your standards is nothing more than a annoying trouble maker.

You have NO arguments that support your position so all you do is attack
others argument. A coward, a fool, a lying little ****.

And that, DDT, is ALL YOU ARE.

And likely all you will ever be.

****off little ****.

And have a nice day.

Kane



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

Given her other cohorts in her life, "he" may well be.

Doan wrote:
Hihihi! A perfect example of how a "never-spanked" boy turned out! And
this is also a perfect example of the debate tactic of the anti-spanking
zealotS. When they ran out of arguments, they resorted to cursing like
a lowly educated street thugs. Yet, Prof. LaVonne still called this
character a "gentleman"! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, 0:- wrote:

What's the matter stupid little boy. You stuck dumb by being so
fuggering dumb?

You have run your ****olla out here for years, the same kind of low
grade schoolboy bs that passes for "thought" that idiots use.

You are nothing but scum, boy.

Scum.

You have NO arguement, just bull****.

You indulge in word tricks when asked questions because they confound
and astound you.

You are stupid. A child. Dumb as a stump.

And a confirmed and constant liar.

When challenged you dodge and claim YOU challenged demanding the
callenger answer YOU as though you are anything more that a stupid
bull****ting asshole.

YOu have nothing now, you had nothing in the past. Your function, even
by your standards is nothing more than a annoying trouble maker.

You have NO arguments that support your position so all you do is attack
others argument. A coward, a fool, a lying little ****.

And that, DDT, is ALL YOU ARE.

And likely all you will ever be.

****off little ****.

And have a nice day.

Kane



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

Greegor wrote:
Kane posted profuse and gratuitout profanity for
over a year in ascps on the world wide web.
Does this make him a role model?

Egad! Did someone present moi as a role model.

SheeeeeIT!

An expert on behavior, qualified to advise others?

Ah, I see what you meant now.

Why yes, I am an expert on behavior, and published as well in the subject.

And yes, I've been paid to advise others. And I've paid to have other's
advise me.

We are called "teachers" and "counselors," and "therapists."

You got a problem with that, sonnyboy?

0:-



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

wrote:
Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

Non spanking parents have both experience and research behind them. And
what do you mean by "it is responding to the way we are designed?"
I'm not designed to hit little children in the name of discipline.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

How true it is. I can identify a spanked child every time. This is the
child that either is aggressive and out of control, or the child who is
inappropriately withdrawn out of fear. Spanking does not lead to
socially competent children.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

What you fail to grasp are discipline/guidance alternatives to spanking.
One doesn't have to hit his/her child in order to discipline or guide
a child. In fact, children who are not spanked but who are guided with
firm and loving expectations are the best behaved of all.

I once heard an old professor of mine refer to the idea of "spoiled
rotten" children. His quote, and I love it to this day, was "Vegetables
and fruit spoil rotten. Children to do not spoil. They only need love
and respectful guidance and discipline."

Great quote, I must say.

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:

Understanding no-spank is facilitated by realizing that the cockamamie
movement has nothing to do with children. That is why no-spanks can
never be persuaded. It doesn't matter how badly their children behave,
if they have any.

I have two children, and at 23 and 27, I look at them and am so glad I
never resorted to hitting in my disciplinary strategies. One has a full
time job, supports herself, and has her own apartment. The younger one
has a degree from Northwestern University and is working for a social
service agency. Both are successful adults. This is a case study for
the longitudinal outcomes of not spanking children.

No-spanks believe they have a higher calling to impose absolute gender
equality. Trying to convert a no-spank is like trying to convince an
Islamic fanatic wearing a bomb to become a peaceable Christian!

I have no idea what not spanking has to do with gender equality.
Perhaps you could enlighten the ng?

And, since individuals who do no spank children are individuals who
advocate peaceful and loving parenting, your analogy to Islam and
"peaceful" and "Christian" parenting is ridiculous.

There is nothing peaceful about physical assault of children.

LaVonne

wrote:

Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

Jeremy,

I can only speak for myself. I am a no spank parent. My girls are now
23 and 27, and I never spanked them.

I don't feel intellectually superior to parents who spank their
children, but I do know that I have read research and I am informed.
Unlike "opinions," I do not present opinion as fact. I have based my
parenting practices on research, knowledge and a love a children. I
could never morally understand why a little child's body should be hit
in the name of discipline.

And yes, based on research in child development and parenting, I know
that better parenting practices include firm and loving disciplinary
strategies that do not include hitting, hurting, shaming, or humiliating
a child. This is not an opinion, Jeremy. If you read the research you
would know this.

My girls were too precious to leave to opinion alone. I wanted to be
informed and give them the best start in life that was possible. I
learned that hitting was correlated with multiple negative short and
long term outcomes. Why would I put my children at risk?

I chose to parent without violence.

LaVonne


Jeremy James wrote:

The point has been brought up in the group before. The debate actually has
nothing to do with spanking. I know non-spanking parents that do not act
like the no-spanks in this group. The no-spanks here are convinced that
they are somehow superior to the spanking parents, either intellectually, or
somehow mentally enlightened, or just overall better parents, none of which
is true.


wrote in message
oups.com...

Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.

Carlson LaVonne wrote:


Opinions wrote:

Understanding no-spank is facilitated by realizing that the cockamamie
movement has nothing to do with children. That is why no-spanks can
never be persuaded. It doesn't matter how badly their children behave,
if they have any.

I have two children, and at 23 and 27, I look at them and am so glad I
never resorted to hitting in my disciplinary strategies. One has a full
time job, supports herself, and has her own apartment. The younger one
has a degree from Northwestern University and is working for a social
service agency. Both are successful adults. This is a case study for
the longitudinal outcomes of not spanking children.

No-spanks believe they have a higher calling to impose absolute gender
equality. Trying to convert a no-spank is like trying to convince an
Islamic fanatic wearing a bomb to become a peaceable Christian!

I have no idea what not spanking has to do with gender equality. Perhaps
you could enlighten the ng?

And, since individuals who do no spank children are individuals who
advocate peaceful and loving parenting, your analogy to Islam and
"peaceful" and "Christian" parenting is ridiculous.

There is nothing peaceful about physical assault of children.

LaVonne

There are Muslim clerics that have admonished the Faithful for using
pain and humiliation in parenting.

But among the Islamist extremist crowd coming out of the Madrasas you
can be sure they all were treated harshly with lots of physical
punishment. There is an outcry against it among the moderate or middle
of the road Muslims.

They now how terrorists are created and want no part of it.

http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/ar...t_affairs/1271

http://www.omct.org/pdf/cc/pakistan_...09_2003_en.pdf




wrote:

Non spanking parents have no clue. Maybe all these arguments will
change their mind over time. But the change required is not necessarily
logical.. it is responding to the way we are designed.

But the best argument is when your families meet in public.

The difference between loving and behaved, and loved and spoiled
rotten, could not be more obvious. Perhaps they will somewhere deep
down ask themselves why.





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

I no longer ever read anything he posts. Anyone with the audacity to use
that emoticon has no idea. I just skip over any of his postings. I tried
to debate with him when I first joined the group but you can't. To debate
means discussing and sharing your point of view and at least listening to
the other person's point, but Kane does not do that, he attacks anyone that
disagrees with him, dissects and criticizes everything they say. All he
really does is prove the point I made the other day, that for people like
Kane the debate has nothing to do with spanking, it's about being right at
all costs. Remember the old saying: "My mind is made so don't confuse me
with the facts."


"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane posted profuse and gratuitout profanity for
over a year in ascps on the world wide web.
Does this make him a role model?
An expert on behavior, qualified to advise others?

Jeremy James wrote:
I no longer ever read anything he posts. Anyone with the audacity to use
that emoticon has no idea. I just skip over any of his postings. I tried
to debate with him when I first joined the group but you can't. To debate
means discussing and sharing your point of view and at least listening to
the other person's point, but Kane does not do that, he attacks anyone that
disagrees with him, dissects and criticizes everything they say. All he
really does is prove the point I made the other day, that for people like
Kane the debate has nothing to do with spanking, it's about being right at
all costs. Remember the old saying: "My mind is made so don't confuse me
with the facts."

Don't you mean;

I no longer ever read anything Doan posts. Anyone with the audacity to
use that emoticon has no idea. I just skip over any of Dona's postings.
I tried to debate with him when I first joined the group but you
can't. To debate means discussing and sharing your point of view and
at least listening to the other person's point, but Doan does not do
that, he attacks anyone that disagrees with him, dissects and criticizes
everything they say. All he really does is prove the point I made the
other day, that for people like Doan the debate has nothing to do with
spanking, it's about being right at all costs. Remember the old saying:
"My mind is made so don't confuse me with the facts."

For you just described Doan to a tee.

The truth is Jeremy, you could not debate the issue on facts. And this
is your way of bailing out.

You've all been hit recently, and it shows, with the inevitable truth
others and myself have been telling you folks for years. Spanking is a
failed practice.

Decades of research show repeatedly a positive correlation between
spanking and poor to bad outcomes.

LaVonne recently posted a reference to an international study that
destroys the last little straw of self delusion you spankers have clung
to so desperately; the cultural gimmick...that where it's accepted it
does not harm and works.

You've BS'd yourselves for your entire lives. So did your parents. It is
hard to let go of old beliefs, but entire civilizations have been held
back and failed because of just that tendency....and unwillingness to
let go of the past and move on.

You are redundant, the lot of you, and "debate" now for you all has
degenerated in Doan's tangential voyages into the absurd ploy of going
off the central issue and debating word choice accuracy. A child's ploy.

Greg and Obsessive/Observer/Opinion indulge in self delusional soliloquy
to the point of the absurd.

And you. YOU attack the man in what you think is a clever way to escape
the reality of your failed agenda.

You, like so many spankers, think you are going to reform us poor misled
souls that don't hit our kids in the name of discipline and 'love.'

Sadly, we have the experience of seeing both outcomes. YOURS and ours.

LaVonne described it recently, and I've had the same experience.
Children raised with methods other than pain and humiliation invariably
turn out better adjusted, more successful overall in life, and more
intelligent.

Socially the are appropriate and contribute to their community.

That any spanked children do is a miracle of the human capacity to
survive nearly any insult to body and psyche and still manage to come
out reasonably well.

You, Jeremy, and all spankers that do not raise criminals are simply
damn lucky and nature gave you a hand.

Sadly, your parents did too...on the butt, too often. It destroyed,
apparently, the capacity for you folks to objectively view your and
other's issues.

To spank is to hit. To his is NOT to love no matter how hard you strain
to believe it.

I pity your children. All of you.

And I pity you and your self delusion.

And you won't debate without, when you cannot deal with the issue and
facts, doing what you tried above: a cowardly cop out.

What's the difference, by the way, between my use of emoticon and Doan's?

Or are you, just as I've pointed out, not objective, and blind to the
beam in your own eye?

Kane



"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kane posted profuse and gratuitout profanity for
over a year in ascps on the world wide web.
Does this make him a role model?
An expert on behavior, qualified to advise others?





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