How science will never end spanking

Doan?


"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

oups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues. But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I
don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason
each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what
constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them
those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
even when they become adults or are outside of our control?

We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
can be found?

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the
other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our
increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

Major error corrected.

I wrote, regarding Christians as regards the New and Old Testament

"
Christians are limited, so they tell me, to the NT.
"

That should have read: 'Christians are NOT limited, so they tell me,
to the NT.'

Thank you for you attention to this correction.

Kane



On Feb 2, 8:13 pm, "0:-" wrote:
Ron wrote:
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch .com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

news:1170357496.294671.315040@a75g2000cwd. googlegroups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements, let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane and
I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,
Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts, but
"secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular
Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but is
that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the Christian
norm? Somehow I dont think so.

Some agree with you, many do not.

My religous background is significant, but
it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can say with some small
authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites. Would you not agree?

No.

Christians are limited, so they tell me, to the NT.

As so often happens, we have a definition of terms problem.

If you asked my personal opinion, rather than the answer I chose, based
on experience with many Christians, and having been one, of course I
claim some Christian hypocrisies. Sadly it's not limited to just this
issue.



like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be just
the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from, or
live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.. We
learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our parents,
and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

And if we used that as the sole arbiter of progress you and I would be
grunting and waving our hands at each other for fear we might use
symbolic sounds and "progress" a bit.

My parents used to tell me their expectation was that I'd do better than
they.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

No. I hate boredom.





But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate. Where
do you draw the line?
Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a strong
advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her mind,
but of course after the fact.

Guilt, whatever it's source, can produce self protecting accommodations
of many kinds. One way is to "change one's mind." Many former
institutional (Like KKK) bigots become human rights advocates.



Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes a
flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the other
problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.

Less difficult to find those that claim they are.

But if

someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a nation
take their reccommendations on the subject?

Unlikely. Each side, if they are extremists, tend to see people who
don't lean their way, as being on the other side, and resistance occurs.

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a black
and white issue.

I don't feel polarized, nor a "little bit pregnant," "or partially dead."

By definition there is quite a bit of gray area that your
question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents right to
conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I don't
believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to assign a
point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason each state
has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what constitutes
abuse and what is parental discipline.

We do much better on traffic control laws.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?
Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that there
are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured their
children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues (developmental
issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point. But
isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
conduct is and is not acceptable?

Non sequitur. Pain is not required as a learning tool. Especially in
this area. It's to critical to humans, their progress as well as their
survival.

"Conduct" should be a matter of ...

read more »

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?


I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan


"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

oups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and "fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking, but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason" takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues. But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason. I
don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the reason
each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to what
constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach them
those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
even when they become adults or are outside of our control?

We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
can be found?

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically, and
practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of the
other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of our
increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?


I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron



"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the reply
is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

oups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
"fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as
it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular.
The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend
to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards
the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children
the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed
her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or
how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far.
I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason.
I
don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
reason
each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
what
constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that point.
But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
them
those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross them
even when they become adults or are outside of our control?

We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury
as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle ground
can be found?

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically,
and
practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the infraction
by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may feel
free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we
can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of
the
other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
our
increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer being
held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?


I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron


Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron



"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

oups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
"fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP, as
it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or non-secular.
The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I tend
to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress towards
the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our children
the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she changed
her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much or
how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that far.
I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within reason.
I
don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
reason
each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
what
constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that
point.
But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the line
when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
them
those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross
them
even when they become adults or are outside of our control?

We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an injury
as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle
ground
can be found?

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally, ethically,
and
practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be
most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the
infraction by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may
feel
free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it we
can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street in
most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any of
the
other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
our
increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer
being
held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?


I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron


Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron

I guess not.

No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

Ron



"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

oups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if
we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil
manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
"fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that
we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP,
as it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or
non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I
tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience
is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress
towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our
children the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she
changed her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much
or how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that
far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within
reason. I
don't believe that they actually stuck their necks out far enough to
assign a point where reason is no longer being followed. Hence the
reason
each state has different guidelines for its CPS organizations as to
what
constitutes abuse and what is parental discipline.

With spanking, I think the sensible thing to do is to leave it up
to the parents?

Well, much as I expect ballistics from you I'll point out again that
there are a very large number of parents that spank that have
injured
their children, even NOT accounting for psychological issues
(developmental issue of cognitive and social growth).

Just physical injury.

Both: True, physical injury does occur. No one can debate that
point.
But isn't the point behind parental discipline to teach our children
what
conduct is and is not acceptable? Not just acceptable by us the
parents,
but by society in general? Assuming that every parents intent is to
teach
our children where those lines are, where should society draw the
line
when deciding how far we as parents are able to go to not only teach
them
those lines but to really make sure that our children do not cross
them
even when they become adults or are outside of our control?

We already have child abuse laws in place. We don't need
another law to incriminate parents!

I agree up to the point that we can determine with some certainty
prior
to the use of CP what injury is and isn't.

A pediatrician has a very different view, often, of what is an
injury as
compared to say a logger in the Northwest and as applied to his
kids.

Our challenge is to find some middle ground that everyone agrees to.

Kane: Good points, all. But with the inherent polarization of the
different sides of the issue do you really believe that a middle
ground
can be found?

The impossibility of this (take were we are with the end of slavery
and
the racist outcome) is apparent, so I moved, last year, from a
position
of moral suasion to accepting that just like bank robbery, a law
against
something that is does not effect the majority is morally,
ethically, and
practically correct.

I can't get people to not rob banks. But I can reduce it with a law.

I can't get people to stop beating their children and calling it
"spanking," so I'm stuck with the ethical dilemma of what will be
most
effective in reducing the instances where parents that spank injure.

So, Hmmmm. So the main thing I see you saying is that all spankings
are
beatings. No matter if injury occurs or not. No matter the
infraction by
the child or the lesson that we are trying to teach them by spanking.

Thats all I have time for right this moment, but one of you may
feel
free to
bring to the table your own ideas on the subject. I only ask one
thing,
from BOTH of you. Be nice!

So far so good. A slight slip at the end there, but if I remove it
we can
pretend that it never happened and carry on with what promises to be
a
fairly interesting conversation.

So I pose a question to you both. Something that has been on my mind
for
quite some time.

According to Kane CP causes aggression in children, hence the reason
why
most of those in prison for violent crimes say they were spanked.

But on the other hand we have a society in which the urban areas are
often
like life at a war front. Children engage in warfare like activities
daily. Its not safe for the average citizen to walk down the street
in
most areas of New York city, nor Chicago, or San Francisco. Or any
of the
other major cities in our country. Could this not be a bi-product of
our
increasingly permissive society, a society where we are no longer
being
held accountable for our actions either as children or as adults?

If so then where does the "happy medium" apply in this respect?

Ron

On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...





"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?

I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron

Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron

I guess not.

No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

"Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R


Ron



"Ron" wrote in message
...
FYI: So far so good gents. If we can keep this up we can actually
have a
reasonable conversation.

As a wise man once said, "Dont start no SH and there wont be no IT".

My replies and questions are directed at both of you BTW, so please
dont
assume that since I respond to a single individuals post that the
reply is
for that individual only. If I direct something to someone
specifically
I'll start it with a name. Thanks again guys for trying!

Comments below:

"0:-" wrote in message
news:iM2dndFEndbHB17YnZ2dnUVZ_tmknZ2d@scnresearch .com...
Doan wrote:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

"0:-" wrote in message
...
Doan wrote:
On 2 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:36 am, "Ron" wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message

news:1170357496.294671.315040@a75g2000cwd. googlegroups.com...

Have social ills of the past been stopped by a scientific
debate?
The debate that matters is the moral one.
What makes it moral to delibertately hit a child to control
and
teach
him or her, and immoral to do the same to an adult?
And the moral debate will be the deciding factor.
Kane
Now THAT I find to be an interesting topic. One we could
discuss
in
depth,
all three of us, and I believe that it could remain civil if
we
chose
to let
it be.

What say gents? Shall we explore this topic in a civil
manner?

Ron
Well, I figure you are addressing me, but DOAN?

R R R R R R R R RR R R

His idea of civil is to cherry pick even from his own
statements,
let
alone his opponent's.

You guys start without me. If he manages to stay "civil," as in
'honest' for a few exchanges I would be tempted to join.

Have you so quickly forgotten his discussion of "truth" and
"fact?"

Kane

You got your answer, Ron! ;-)
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

OK, well at least I got your attention.

Lets start here, shall we? Lets start with the premise that Kane
started
with, that scientific debate alone is not the answer to our social
ill's.

Moral discussion must be a part of the answer. Along with the
scientific.
Leaving scientific aside, since this is the area where the two of
you
just
cant seem to get together, let us instead focus on the moral
belief's
that
we believe should have impact on the debate.

Morals are based upon our belief structure and those things that
we
have
been taught from infancy by our parents, who got it from their
parents,
etc.
Passed down through time to our current generations (since we are
at
least 2
different generations, I have no idea of Doans age). Now, both
Kane
and I
are "secular" individuals, choosing to not support organized
religions,
but
we are also basically moral individuals. The general basis for
morals
and
our nations laws come from religious belief's. Decidedly
non-secular.
Is
this a contradiction?

No.

The secular crowd, for the most part, believe that non-CP methods
of
child
rearing are best. The non-secular believe, again for the most
part,
that we
should follow the methods used by the generations before us, CP,
as it
was
"good for us" and we turned out alright. Correct?

I don't think you can differentiated this on secular or
non-secular. The
only only thing I tend to agree is that the secular crowd tends to
use
religion (e.g. the Bible) as justification,

Doan, I don't know if you caught this and corrected it in later
posts,
but "secular" means not of religion.

the non-secular

Means "religious."

Correct.

In many cases people DO use the bible as justification for spanking,
but
is that in keeping with the professed religious objectives of the
Christian norm? Somehow I dont think so. My religous background is
significant, but it no longer affects my life as it once did. So, I
can
say with some small authority that Christians who spank are
hypocrites.
Would you not agree?

like to argue
that they have science behind them (e.g. Straus and his studies).
Neither
is able to convince the other; hence, we reached an impasse. I
tend to
take the middle ground, using common-sense and personal experience
as
my guide.

Doan: Putting hisorty in this NG aside, it sounds like reason might
be
just the ticket. But if thats so then why does it not prevail?

That would presume you were not influenced by the culture you are
from,
or live in.

The middle ground has it's biases as well. And personal experience
is
colored by personal history.

Kane: Agreed. Personal history, as I alluded to in the beginning of
my
portion of this conversation, has significant affect on how one
parents.
We learn how to do it by using the same guidelines as observed in our
parents, and to some small portion by things we learn as adults.

No one sees the world precisely or often even anywhere near the way
another does.

Or we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

Wouldn't that be nice?

But where do these belief structures come into play, both secular
and
non-secular, CP and Non-CP, when discussing racial progress
towards the
ultimate goal of civilization? Here in the USA we have the right
to
hold
our own belief's, AND practice them, as we see fit as long as it
does
not
harm the body politic. In our homes we practice the religon we
choose,
or
not as we choose. But what vehicle do we use to teach our
children the
morals we want them to value?

Good question. We see the same argument with the abortion debate.
Where
do you draw the line?

Well, one can't have an abortion and change their mind.

Kane: Tell that to the woman in the Roe v. Wade case. She is now a
strong advocate for the anti-abortion crowd. I'd say that she
changed her
mind, but of course after the fact.

Is there a sensible middle ground that we can live
with?

I believe there is. Or that there can be. The problem is that so
many
people become impassioned by the debate to the point where "reason"
takes
a flying leap out a window. Same with the abortion debate. One of
the
other problems is trying to define where that middle ground is. Its
quite
difficult to find someone who is truly non-partisan on these issues.
But
if someone, or some group of people, were to be found, would we as a
nation take their reccommendations on the subject?

Since the argument, as posed by Ron, and by others, isn't how much
or how
hard or under what circumstances to spank, we are left with the real
question. Whether to spank, or not spank as a practice.

Kane: Hmmm, I don't know if the question can be boiled down that
far. I
suppose it can if one is totally polarized on the subject one way or
the
other, but the issue does not lend itself easily to being coined as a
black and white issue. By definition there is quite a bit of gray
area
that your question cannot address. SCOTUS has said that it is a
parents
right to conduct corrective discipline as they see fit, within

...

read more »

On 8 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...





"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?

I stand corrected. I should have written that secular = non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron

Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron

I guess not.

No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

"Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R

Doan:
You got your answer, Ron! ;-)

Kane:
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

Doan

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On 8 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 8, 4:34 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

...





"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Doan" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Ron wrote:

Doan?

I stand corrected. I should have written that secular =
non-religous!

Doan

Is that your only comment?

Ron

Come on Doan, you HAVE to have more to say than that!

Ron

I guess not.

No interest in having a reasonable conversation Doan?

"Reasonable?" R RRRR R R RR R R

Doan:
You got your answer, Ron! ;-)

Kane:
Looks like he got yours as well. 0;]

Doan

How depressing. I had assumed from your earlier posts that you were open to
reasonable discussion on topics in this forum. Sadly this seems to not be
true. I offered to foster a discussion on the stated topic of the thread,
and you opt out.

Being curious and all, I wonder why? Do you prefer the regular style of
conversation that you have here, one full of hate and innuendo, unproductive
and without any real merit?

IOW, is Kane right about you and that all you are interested in is flaming?
I'm no longer interested in the topic itself, but in why you are avoiding a
chance to engage with Kane and myself in a reasonable and hopefully
productive conversation.

Ron

???????????????????????????????
??????????? ???????????

WHAT?!