Norm Lee's Parenting Without Punishing

See monkey dance fast.

I am no longer going to entertain this question because you refuse to admit
that someone whose opinion is different than yours may be correct. I do not
enjoy spanking my children but there are times when it is necessary. If I
follow your line of logic I would not take my children to the doctor because
neither the child or I like doing so. How I choose to discipline my
children is no one's business but mine and my wife's as long as I am not
abusive. If your discipline techniques worked for you in your set of
circumstances then I congratulate you, but your situation is different than
mine. The truth is that you are so determined to be right that you refuse
to listen to anything, and you are going to twist any response I make no
matter how logical it may be. In other words, your argument is "My mind is
made up so don't confuse me with the facts". So say whatever you like, I
will not respond again.

By the way dear, if you are going to try to impress us with words like
"sophistry", you may wish to know what the word actually means.

Good bye



wrote in message
oups.com...

Jirimi J wrote:
Lavonne

It's no that we WANT to hit our children,

Actually, that would be sophistry. Wanting to "discipline" and defining
spanking as a discipline, means that you want to hit your children,
unless you have found a way to spank without hitting.

it's that we want to be the best
parents we can.

I do not doubt that.

Disclipline is part of being a parent, we don't enjoy it
but it is our obligation.

I found "discipline" with my children to be a joy. I loved it. Because
to me it meant teaching, and I love teaching.

There are times when spanking is the most
appropriate form of disclipline.

What times are those?

Failing to properly disclipline your child
is a form of neglect.

Yes, that is true. If, when my children indicated they wanted to learn
something, or needed to, I neglected to teach what they needed, and
precisely what they needed, that would have been neglect.

That is why I decided that I did not want to teach them hitting, when
they weren't asking to learn how to hit, but rather, how to eat, or
share toys, or preserve the household belongings, or clean up, or treat
me respecfully.

Instead of teaching them hitting, guess what I taught?

Now, again, what were those "times" you mentioned?

0:-

Jeremy

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...
Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting them?
I
don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would want to
be
the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your children?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!

Jirimi J wrote:
I am no longer going to entertain this question because you refuse to
admit
that someone whose opinion is different than yours may be correct.

I refuse to admit someone whose opinion is different on this issue is
correct..but that is the nature of debate. Did you come here to be
validated?

That would be something more likely found in a moderated group with no
one allowed that did not agree with spanking.

I do not
enjoy spanking my children but there are times when it is necessary.


You said that before. I concede you believe that. I do not that it is
true. I raised two children, and did residential treatment with
hundreds of others, and never needed spank anyone, ever. And I had
extraordinary success with mentally disturbed children, let alone my
own 0:-, and did not have to use spanking.

If I
follow your line of logic I would not take my children to the doctor
because
neither the child or I like doing so.

No, that is not true, and certainly not my line of logic at all. It
presupposes, for instant, that the child not spanked will not
experience unpleasantness as a matter of course by the simple matter of
living.

I just don't believe I have to add to that when they are trying so hard
to learn.

How I choose to discipline my
children is no one's business but mine and my wife's as long as I am
not
abusive.

How do you determine the line between abuse and non abuse? Where
exactly is the cut off point for one, and the beginning of the next?

If your discipline techniques worked for you in your set of
circumstances then I congratulate you, but your situation is
different than
mine.

I doubt that. What could my children have possibly had different than
yours? Are your's in some way extraordinarily difficult to parent?

The truth is that you are so determined to be right that you refuse
to listen to anything, and you are going to twist any response I make
no
matter how logical it may be.

Well, are you not determined to be right, and willing to twist my
responses? As I've just demonstrated earlier in this post you have
done?

In other words, your argument is "My mind is
made up so don't confuse me with the facts".

If you can produce facts that prove to me that non spanking techniques
are dangerous I'll be happy to have an objective look at your facts. Do
you have any?

So say whatever you like, I
will not respond again.

Interesting method of supporting your position. Run.

By the way dear, if you are going to try to impress us with words
like
"sophistry", you may wish to know what the word actually means.

I know, and it applied to you, and to others that make such claims and
use words to minimize and disguise the risk of damage that spanking and
CP inherently have in them.

Good bye

So what do you think "sophistry" means that does not apply to you?

Last time I checked, it's meaning had not changed from how I used it:

soph=B7is=B7try Audio pronunciation of "sophistry" ( P ) Pronunciation
Key (sf-str)
n=2E pl. soph=B7is=B7tries

1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

So, do you disagree that you were using it, and if so, how do you
determine that you were not?

Best wishes.

0:-



wrote in message
oups.com...

Jirimi J wrote:
Lavonne

It's no that we WANT to hit our children,

Actually, that would be sophistry. Wanting to "discipline" and
defining
spanking as a discipline, means that you want to hit your children,
unless you have found a way to spank without hitting.

it's that we want to be the best
parents we can.

I do not doubt that.

Disclipline is part of being a parent, we don't enjoy it
but it is our obligation.

I found "discipline" with my children to be a joy. I loved it.
Because
to me it meant teaching, and I love teaching.

There are times when spanking is the most
appropriate form of disclipline.

What times are those?

Failing to properly disclipline your child
is a form of neglect.

Yes, that is true. If, when my children indicated they wanted to
learn
something, or needed to, I neglected to teach what they needed, and
precisely what they needed, that would have been neglect.

That is why I decided that I did not want to teach them hitting,
when
they weren't asking to learn how to hit, but rather, how to eat, or
share toys, or preserve the household belongings, or clean up, or
treat
me respecfully.

Instead of teaching them hitting, guess what I taught?

Now, again, what were those "times" you mentioned?

0:-

Jeremy

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...
Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting
them?
I
don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would
want to
be
the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your
children?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!

Jirimi, meet Kane0. He is a "never-spanked" boy and a spoke-person for
the anti-spanking zealotS. Please don't confuse him with facts! ;-)

Doan


On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jirimi J wrote:

I am no longer going to entertain this question because you refuse to admit
that someone whose opinion is different than yours may be correct. I do not
enjoy spanking my children but there are times when it is necessary. If I
follow your line of logic I would not take my children to the doctor because
neither the child or I like doing so. How I choose to discipline my
children is no one's business but mine and my wife's as long as I am not
abusive. If your discipline techniques worked for you in your set of
circumstances then I congratulate you, but your situation is different than
mine. The truth is that you are so determined to be right that you refuse
to listen to anything, and you are going to twist any response I make no
matter how logical it may be. In other words, your argument is "My mind is
made up so don't confuse me with the facts". So say whatever you like, I
will not respond again.

By the way dear, if you are going to try to impress us with words like
"sophistry", you may wish to know what the word actually means.

Good bye



wrote in message
oups.com...

Jirimi J wrote:
Lavonne

It's no that we WANT to hit our children,

Actually, that would be sophistry. Wanting to "discipline" and defining
spanking as a discipline, means that you want to hit your children,
unless you have found a way to spank without hitting.

it's that we want to be the best
parents we can.

I do not doubt that.

Disclipline is part of being a parent, we don't enjoy it
but it is our obligation.

I found "discipline" with my children to be a joy. I loved it. Because
to me it meant teaching, and I love teaching.

There are times when spanking is the most
appropriate form of disclipline.

What times are those?

Failing to properly disclipline your child
is a form of neglect.

Yes, that is true. If, when my children indicated they wanted to learn
something, or needed to, I neglected to teach what they needed, and
precisely what they needed, that would have been neglect.

That is why I decided that I did not want to teach them hitting, when
they weren't asking to learn how to hit, but rather, how to eat, or
share toys, or preserve the household belongings, or clean up, or treat
me respecfully.

Instead of teaching them hitting, guess what I taught?

Now, again, what were those "times" you mentioned?

0:-

Jeremy

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...
Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting them?
I
don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would want to
be
the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your children?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!

Jirimi J wrote:

Lavonne

It's no that we WANT to hit our children, it's that we want to be the best
parents we can. Disclipline is part of being a parent, we don't enjoy it
but it is our obligation. There are times when spanking is the most
appropriate form of disclipline.

I do believe that people who hit their children want generally want to
be the best parent they can be. However, spanking does not have to be a
part of discipline. I viewed discipline as an opportunity to teach my
child how to make appropriate behavioral choices. I wouldn't hit a
child to teach appropriate social behavior any more than I would hit a
child in an effort to teach him/her how to read or ride a bike.

I liked disciplining my children, because I taught them rather than hit
and hurt them. I also know that children learn by example, and I didn't
want them to learn that hitting another individual was an appropriate
way to teach appropriate behavior.

Failing to properly disclipline your child
is a form of neglect.

I agree, Jeremy. And that is why I didn't hit my children. Hitting has
no place in "proper discipline."

LaVonne

Jeremy

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...

Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting them? I
don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would want to be
the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your children?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:


Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!

Jirimi J wrote: (to Kane)

I am no longer going to entertain this question because you refuse to admit
that someone whose opinion is different than yours may be correct.

It's a sham that you didn't stick around long enough to actually debate
the issue. However, it sounds like what you are accusing Kane of doing
is exactly what you are doing. You have decided your opinion is correct
and will no longer discuss with individuals who disagree with you.

I do not
enjoy spanking my children but there are times when it is necessary. If I
follow your line of logic I would not take my children to the doctor because
neither the child or I like doing so.

If you don't enjoy spanking your children, stop spanking them. Your
"logic" is absurd. Why would you not like taking your children to the
doctor when they are sick, and you know that this doctor has expertise
that you do not have, and this doctor can help your child? I enjoyed
helping my children.

How I choose to discipline my
children is no one's business but mine and my wife's as long as I am not
abusive.

How wrong you are. Did you know that the definition of "abuse" varies
with the state in which you live? Did you also know that adults are
protected from corporal punishment because it is considered abusive?
And you think that little children deserve less protection?

If your discipline techniques worked for you in your set of
circumstances then I congratulate you, but your situation is different than
mine.

How are Kane's circumstances different from yours, other than the fact
that he learned alternative ways to raise children. For that matter,
how are my circumstances different from yours, other than the fact that
I learned alternative ways to discipline my children that did not
involve hitting?

The truth is that you are so determined to be right that you refuse
to listen to anything, and you are going to twist any response I make no
matter how logical it may be. In other words, your argument is "My mind is
made up so don't confuse me with the facts". So say whatever you like, I
will not respond again.

Oh the power of projection.

By the way, perhaps you could tell us why children should be exempt from
protection from cruel and unusual punishment and assault and battery?
This is what you and I enjoy as adults in this society.

LaVonne

By the way dear, if you are going to try to impress us with words like
"sophistry", you may wish to know what the word actually means.

Good bye



wrote in message
oups.com...

Jirimi J wrote:

Lavonne

It's no that we WANT to hit our children,

Actually, that would be sophistry. Wanting to "discipline" and defining
spanking as a discipline, means that you want to hit your children,
unless you have found a way to spank without hitting.


it's that we want to be the best
parents we can.

I do not doubt that.


Disclipline is part of being a parent, we don't enjoy it
but it is our obligation.

I found "discipline" with my children to be a joy. I loved it. Because
to me it meant teaching, and I love teaching.


There are times when spanking is the most
appropriate form of disclipline.

What times are those?


Failing to properly disclipline your child
is a form of neglect.

Yes, that is true. If, when my children indicated they wanted to learn
something, or needed to, I neglected to teach what they needed, and
precisely what they needed, that would have been neglect.

That is why I decided that I did not want to teach them hitting, when
they weren't asking to learn how to hit, but rather, how to eat, or
share toys, or preserve the household belongings, or clean up, or treat
me respecfully.

Instead of teaching them hitting, guess what I taught?

Now, again, what were those "times" you mentioned?

0:-

Jeremy

"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...

Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting them?

I

don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would want to

be

the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your children?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:


Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!

wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Why are you so committed to disciplining children by hitting them? I


don't understand this, greegor.

If you are parenting children, I would think that you would want to

be

the best parent you possibly could be.

So, why do you fight so hard for the right to hit your children?

LaVonne



I guess the eternal puzzle in this bit of the debate will never be
resolved.

It may, if laws were changed that no longer permitted disciplinary
hitting of children. I know you do not necessarily agree with this
approach, but laws can change norms. Suddenly a behavior is no longer
legally sanctioned.

Why would anyone chose to spank, to hit their child, even if neither
would be proven to be better than the other?

Because the spankers do not care about proof. And because the spankers
hit their children because they can. And, I believe, because our
society not only allows but also condones this behavior.

At least with no hitting the risk of injury, both physical and
emotional, is reduced.

Spankers do not believe that not engaging in disciplinary hitting will
reduce the risk of social and emotional injury. They do not see the
connection.

You ever figure this one out, LaVonne?

Yes, I think I have figured this out.

Their logic escapes me.

That's because their reasoning is not based on logic.

If can get compliance, say from my dog, and never hit him, even though
the compliance level is the same as if I did, why would I hit him?

I've raised dogs and now have two. I never hit either of them. I was
at the vet yesterday and other people's dogs were pulling, lunging, and
jumping. My dogs were lying quietly at my feet. One woman with a
friendly Newfoundland approached me and said to her dog, "Let's go meet
the good dogs." And I repeat I never have hit a dog, but I adopted a
dog that had been hit as part of her training/discipline. The dog was
skittish of me and it took a long time to gain her trust. Obedience
training was very difficult.

Yah know, now that I think if it, the answer may well be simply sadism.
The desire to hurt others for some sense of power and pleasure.

I do think there is something about the desire to hurt others for power
and pleasure. I suspect many of the avid spankers are really engaging
in retaliation, and retaliation is nothing but power and the pleasure of
finally having that power.

What do you think? Am I on to something? (and no, I don't think it's my
own personal brand new idea.... 0:-)

Yes, you are onto something. And no, I don't think it's your own brand
new idea, unless a whole lot of other people stumbled onto the same idea!

LaVonne

Best.



Greegor wrote:


Yes, It's a movement of ... several.

If the rabid anti-spanking kooks stamp their feet all at
the same time, the Earth will tremble! :

Never before have so few depicted themselves
as so many!