"Parenting Without Punishing"

Tori M. wrote:

Remember it is "The right to PURSUE happiness" Not the right
to be happy.
Tori
---------------------
That ain't God's Will or something!.

That's a few words written by a few rich guys
which are about to be changed.
Steve

No Gods will is that we love him with all our heart soul and mind.
-----------------------
Jesus didn't write the Consitution or Declaration.
Rich guys did.


Despite the fact that prosperity churches claim otherwise
-------------------------
"Prosperity" churches serve the rich, who aren't going anywhere.
Camels and eyes of needles, ya know!?


he never promised we would
all be treated equaly on earth or that we would always be happy.
-----------------------
He said we SHOULD be and we should fight for that.
Steve


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Tori M. wrote:

You are confused and codependent in your grasp of proper human
boundaries!!
Steve

And you are confused into believing that life is suposed to or ever will
be
fair...
--------------
The thrust of all human history, technology, government, medicine,
is to make life fair, this will continue infinitely.


There will always be someone that is smarter/faster/luckier then
you.
-------------------
Not if we make it illegal for anyone to suffer because of such
accidents!


letting your children have some false sense that the world is fair is
detramental not only to their personal well being but to everyone
arround
them.
---------------------
I'm sure some asshole in feudal times said the same thing to try to
justify serfdom, or some central park mugger to justify theft, but
it was a lie then, and it's a lie now!


Remember it is "The right to PURSUE happiness" Not the right to be
happy.
Tori
---------------------
That's a few words written by a few rich guys
which are about to be changed.
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people, and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people, and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.
Debate disappears the instant someone lies. It's been gone for years
here, thanks to Droany who even lies by saying others lie. Very
strange little man.

Kane

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:11:55 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


Kane, I will readily admit that I'm not perfect. But take a look at
how
much of the material in your message is aimed at attacking and
insulting me.
Can you find any example where I've focused so much energy on
attacking
someone at the expense of trying to present my case?

Nope. I don't need a bolt hole to dive out of. I thought I'd provide
you one.

YOU just took it, instead of staying on task and answering the actual
questions asked.

What have my manners got to do with the issue we are discussing?

Let me ask the question regarding women's rights another way: what
arguments
were used by those OPPOSED to granting equal rights to women?

Immoral ones.

Next question.

Was, or was
not, the concept that women are significantly less capable than men,
including the analogy with the parent/child relationship, a central
argument
in support of men's having authority to punish their wives? If you
don't
think it was, then obviously one of us is off base regarding the
historical
aspect of the situation.

Yep, you are correct. They immorally chose to make up bull**** about
women's human inalienable rights that they were quite happy to
establish and take for themselves prior to suffrage.

You've got a bug up your butt about this, don't you?

And I believe it is tied to your reluctance to get to the real matter
at hand. Advocates for, and those that use CP, are simply misinformed
cowards.

It takes guts to go against the flow and seriously consider the things
I an others have presented to you anti CP. I've seen the fear boiling
over in the form of hatred and lies about children and who and what
they really are.

You seem intelligent enough to make the breakthrough. Why don't you?


Nathan

[This is the end of my reply; the material quoted below is included
for
reference purposes only.]

Okay, that's helpful if I needed it. I don't.

I consider you one of the lost that has a chance of finding himself.
You don't really have to hate your parents for doing to you what they
did. They were ignorant and probably far more thoroughly conditioned
than you were.........and kindly all the while they forced you to
accept and embrace your humiliation and pain, and fear.

You can do it. Grow up before you have kids. Say to yourself, not even
publically to me, "I will NOT hit my children, nor cause them pain and
humiliation."

Come on Nathan. Be one of the brave ones.

Google Jerry Alborn here. Read what he has to say about how he made
the step. He doesn't brag or even discuss the depth of struggle he
very likely had to go through, but trust me, he had to. Everyone that
is brave enough to end, in their own line, brute force punishment
parenting, has to.

Best wishes,

I'm through discussing this with you. Thanks for tuning in.

Kane

(snipped....I still can't get over my irrational bandwidth saving
habits of old..hehe).

On 23 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message ...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people, and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.
Debate disappears the instant someone lies. It's been gone for years
here, thanks to Droany who even lies by saying others lie. Very
strange little man.

LOL! More lies from a "never-spanked" boy!

Doan

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you
aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people,
and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.

I'm here both to offer my ideas and to learn from the ideas of others. To
me, it's a feedback process: if what I learn from others helps me refine my
ideas, the ideas I offer others will be better. Yes, I push hard with my
ideas when I've put enough time and thought into them that I'm pretty sure
I'm on target. But I expect others to push back, and I value new
information, arguments, and insights they provide when they do push back.
And while a lot of my goal in listening is to look for my next way to attack
(which, after all, is an integral part of debate), I'm also reevaluating my
own ideas in light of whatever new information I receive.

If people give me good reasons to change my views, the effect over time can
be very significant even if I don't change my mind as completely as the
people trying to convince me might like. But in order to do so, they have
to either present arguments compatible with my underlying philosophical
viewpoints or make a convincing case for why I should change those
underlying philosophical viewpoints. Otherwise, they're just (to use your
analogy) hammering away at the carburator and accomplishing nothing useful.
(And yes, I recognize quite well that I have the same obligation when I want
to try to convince others. On the other hand, you might note that I often
preface things I say with something like, "In my view," indicating that I am
merely expressing my view and explaining why I hold it and not necessarily
trying to persuade the person I'm having the discussion with to adopt it.)

Nathan

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If you
aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at people,
and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.

I'm here both to offer my ideas and to learn from the ideas of others. To
me, it's a feedback process: if what I learn from others helps me refine my
ideas, the ideas I offer others will be better. Yes, I push hard with my
ideas when I've put enough time and thought into them that I'm pretty sure
I'm on target. But I expect others to push back, and I value new
information, arguments, and insights they provide when they do push back.
And while a lot of my goal in listening is to look for my next way to attack
(which, after all, is an integral part of debate), I'm also reevaluating my
own ideas in light of whatever new information I receive.

If people give me good reasons to change my views, the effect over time can
be very significant even if I don't change my mind as completely as the
people trying to convince me might like. But in order to do so, they have
to either present arguments compatible with my underlying philosophical
viewpoints or make a convincing case for why I should change those
underlying philosophical viewpoints. Otherwise, they're just (to use your
analogy) hammering away at the carburator and accomplishing nothing useful.
(And yes, I recognize quite well that I have the same obligation when I want
to try to convince others. On the other hand, you might note that I often
preface things I say with something like, "In my view," indicating that I am
merely expressing my view and explaining why I hold it and not necessarily
trying to persuade the person I'm having the discussion with to adopt it.)

Nathan

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:11:55 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

YOU just took it, instead of staying on task and answering the actual
questions asked.

What I did instead of "answering the actual questions asked" was reframe the
issue in a way that I hoped would cut through the clutter and get to the
heart of the matter.

Was, or was not, the concept that women are significantly less
capable than men, including the analogy with the parent/child
relationship, a central argument in support of men's having
authority to punish their wives? If you don't think it was, then
obviously one of us is off base regarding the historical
aspect of the situation.

Yep, you are correct.

Okay. From this point, there are two different interpretations. Your
interpretation is that abolition of husbands' authority to spank their wives
was part of an ongoing process of discovering that all use of corporal
punishment is wrong. My interpretation is that the fact that wives are
presumed to be mature, responsible adults who don't need someone else to
exercise authority over them is critical to why the law should not give
husbands the authority to spank their wives, and that if wives were no more
mature and responsible than five-year-olds (yet still had five-year-olds'
ability to control their behavior when they choose to), a different
conclusion would probably be warranted. (Of course if women were like that,
none of them would be who and what they actually are.)

From a moral perspective, either view can be defended depending on one's
underlying philosophical beliefs and values. But because either view can be
defended, it is not logically sound to use the fact that we abolished
corporal punishment of wives as evidence that we should abolish corporal
punishment of children, or that parents should never spank their own
children. Or, more precisely, the argument is only logically sound relative
to one of the two interpretations of why husbands shouldn't have the
authority to spank their wives, and is therefore useless for convincing
those of us who follow the other interpretation.

Nathan

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:11:55 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

YOU just took it, instead of staying on task and answering the actual
questions asked.

What I did instead of "answering the actual questions asked" was reframe the
issue in a way that I hoped would cut through the clutter and get to the
heart of the matter.

Was, or was not, the concept that women are significantly less
capable than men, including the analogy with the parent/child
relationship, a central argument in support of men's having
authority to punish their wives? If you don't think it was, then
obviously one of us is off base regarding the historical
aspect of the situation.

Yep, you are correct.

Okay. From this point, there are two different interpretations. Your
interpretation is that abolition of husbands' authority to spank their wives
was part of an ongoing process of discovering that all use of corporal
punishment is wrong. My interpretation is that the fact that wives are
presumed to be mature, responsible adults who don't need someone else to
exercise authority over them is critical to why the law should not give
husbands the authority to spank their wives, and that if wives were no more
mature and responsible than five-year-olds (yet still had five-year-olds'
ability to control their behavior when they choose to), a different
conclusion would probably be warranted. (Of course if women were like that,
none of them would be who and what they actually are.)

From a moral perspective, either view can be defended depending on one's
underlying philosophical beliefs and values. But because either view can be
defended, it is not logically sound to use the fact that we abolished
corporal punishment of wives as evidence that we should abolish corporal
punishment of children, or that parents should never spank their own
children. Or, more precisely, the argument is only logically sound relative
to one of the two interpretations of why husbands shouldn't have the
authority to spank their wives, and is therefore useless for convincing
those of us who follow the other interpretation.

Nathan

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:15:32 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
(originally responding to Kane)

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???

A conversation involves talking and listening on both sides. If
you
aren't
willing to listen, all you're really here for is to preach at
people,
and
being preached at is not MY reason for being here.

Of course not. It's obvious YOU are here to preach. Ain't we all
though.

I'm here both to offer my ideas and to learn from the ideas of
others. To
me, it's a feedback process: if what I learn from others helps me
refine my
ideas, the ideas I offer others will be better. Yes, I push hard
with my
ideas when I've put enough time and thought into them that I'm pretty
sure
I'm on target. But I expect others to push back, and I value new
information, arguments, and insights they provide when they do push
back.
And while a lot of my goal in listening is to look for my next way to
attack
(which, after all, is an integral part of debate), I'm also
reevaluating my
own ideas in light of whatever new information I receive.

If people give me good reasons to change my views, the effect over
time can
be very significant even if I don't change my mind as completely as
the
people trying to convince me might like. But in order to do so, they
have
to either present arguments compatible with my underlying
philosophical
viewpoints or make a convincing case for why I should change those
underlying philosophical viewpoints. Otherwise, they're just (to use
your
analogy) hammering away at the carburator and accomplishing nothing
useful.
(And yes, I recognize quite well that I have the same obligation when
I want
to try to convince others. On the other hand, you might note that I
often
preface things I say with something like, "In my view," indicating
that I am
merely expressing my view and explaining why I hold it and not
necessarily
trying to persuade the person I'm having the discussion with to adopt
it.)

Do you frequently delude yourself in this way? It seems to be a theme
in your postings. You profess, it appears, to a civil discourse laced
with barely concealed contempt for your opponent, while babbling
screed as old as inflicting beatings on those weaker than one's self.

Nathan, you aren't offering anything new.

If you have really studied the issue we are discussing you'd not say
such things.....you'd already know the answers and counterclaims to
your questions and claims.

You delude yourself when you state: ".....I am merely expressing my
view and explaining why I hold it and not necessarily trying to
persuade the person I'm having the discussion with to adopt it."

Truth is we are constantly trying to influence others. We even do it
in rehearsal when we are alone.

You are out of touch with yourself. A common occurance of a trait most
often seen in children who have had to disassociate to survive the
awful truth that first slap, physical or psychological, they got from
their parent.

Your future was cast at that moment. You either became a rage filled
vengeful beast, waiting his or her turn to inflict pain on others, or
a coward cringing in a dark corner running life by remote control
instead of living it.

Some can even combine the two.

As your mind clears, as it often does over time, you will come to see
what I say is true. This is the horror that parenting by pain
produces.

As your mind clears you'll come to understand what all the agony we
humans inflict on each other and on this planet is about.

And it could be paradise.

Sad, idnit?

Nathan

Kane