Would you spank in this situation?

**0:->**

wrote:
0:- wrote:
Doan wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Greegor wrote:
Doan wrote to Kane
And now you want the child to have his
day in court too? So in your logic, the
police hit you with a baton is not assault
but a parent who spank their kids is?
That's Kane!
If a police officer hits me with a baton and he or she had no legal
right to do so, that's assault.

A parent who spank his/her kid has the legal right to do so, STUPID!
I never claimed they didn't, Stupid.

Then, by definition, it's not assault, STUPID!

The only valid definitions are those made by law?

How quaint, Doan.

By LAW, as I've said, it's not assault. By definition it most certainly
is. The legal definition is not the only standard.

I'm saying the law is wrong, stupid.

You are not the emperor, STUPID!

Nothing in my claim suggests I am. Is everyone that disagrees with a
law, trying to be "the emperor" then?

So all lobbyists, letters to the editor writers, protesters, outspoken
advocates are all "wrong" because it's the law?

Remember Thurgood Marshall? Would you say he, earlier in his law career
was trying to be "the emperor?"

And thousands of other people that have gotten laws changed?

Just as anti-abortinists say Roe vs.
Wade
is wrong and abortion is murder does make them so.

Correct. Thus my saying spanking is wrong, and the law that supports it
is wrong, doesn't make it right.

Just like slavery was wrong, just like oppression of women under color
of law was wrong, just like exploitation of children from lack of law
was wrong. Stupid.

False analogies, STUPID!

Nope. Slavery was wrong because it allowed people to beat, and even
kill, should they chose, other humans in their power.

Spanking is wrong because it allows people to hit children and cause
pain and humiliation for reasons that are not supportable. Teaching can
be done with out it.

And very well, at that.

Or do you think parents spank for reasons other than to teach?

Hence, the result that is inevitable in coming, just as it has elsewhere
in this world, a law making the hitting of children for any reason other
than self defense (just like the law that applies to adults...age 18 and
up) assault, stupid.

But the police hitting you with a baton to gain compliance is not,
right? ;-)

Nope. As long as they can defend it under the law. If they cannot, it is
not.

You have not responded to the issue, and if there was ever an
inappropriate analogy yours would be it, Doan.

People don't hit children to "gain compliance," or they will be breaking
the law.

They can do it only to discipline, and the word means to teach.

The law that gives the officer the right to hit with his or her baton is
no different than the right I have to strike a child to protect myself
from him or her.

So when the police hit you with his baton, you can hit back, right?
;-)

If he or she is illegally using their baton, yes, of course. In fact I
could shoot him or her, since a baton can be considered lethal force.

Can the cop get away with it? Probably more likely than not, but as you
know if you can read, they most certainly have been caught using the
baton and other tools illegally.

But that should not give me a legal right to strike a child and NOT call
it assault because I want to "teach" him or her something. The cop can't
do it, and the parent should not be able to do it.

The cop can't give a time-out to "teach" you soemting neither, STUPID!

Nor can he hit me to "teach" me something either, dummy.

Are you saying the parents can't give time-out now?

Circular logic does not support itself, stupid.

It's not a cop's job to teach a suspected criminal anything, little
hysterical stupid monkeyboy.

But he most certainly give one a 'time-out' say in the back of a squad
car. That is legal. If the purpose is.

We may control our children, legally, in many ways, Doan, but if we
escalate some of them sufficiently we would break the law.

I want the line moved.

Keep trying monkeyboy. You are looking stupider by the post.

If you want to see something stupid, just look in the mirror,
never-spanked boy! ;-)

You weren't there. So I looked in the toilet before flushing, and damn,
there you were.

flush R R R R R R R

AF

0:-

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

**Greegor**

Kane wrote
2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.

Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.

But did they COMBINE the two methods?
I saw no mention of that.

Did you think that anti-spankers did the
kinds of explanation before and after
an incident or did they act out their worst
cliche' about spank How many times spank
do I need to tell you spank not to run out
into the spank street?

Didn't they pit the WORST spanking method
against a very INTENSIVE alternative of verbal
counseling alone?

Why was the verbal part of spanking done so BADLY??

Was the intent to bias the results?

Or was that just accidental?

Kane wrote
He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.
http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm

Golly, maybe the BIAS was NOT acidental!

Did this biased PUKE actually pass any PEER REVIEW?
What did he do, find some flaky liberal pukes like himself
to agree with him?

Is THAT what PEER REVIEW is all about?

Finding people with the SAME BIAS HE HAS?

**0:->**

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.

Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.

But did they COMBINE the two methods?
I saw no mention of that.

What two methods?

Did you think that anti-spankers did the
kinds of explanation before and after
an incident or did they act out their worst
cliche' about spank How many times spank
do I need to tell you spank not to run out
into the spank street?

This makes no sense. Can you explain so we can understand?

Didn't they pit the WORST spanking method
against a very INTENSIVE alternative of verbal
counseling alone?

No. Who is this "they" you are referring to? The Embry Study?

Doan can give you a link to it, so he claims. Ask him and read it for
the answers.

The study was an experiment. Not just data collection. I used certain
methods to teach. Read it.

Why was the verbal part of spanking done so BADLY??

To what are you referring? You seem to think Doan is telling the truth.
Learn for yourself. Read the study. Doan says he has it. You two seem
like butt buddies. Surely he'll supply you with a copy.

Can you afford the postage he demanded from other requesters?

I'll pay yours for you if he'll send it to you. I figure five bucks tops
by any method of shipment, OR, since he says it's on line, have him link
you to it. The you won't cost me any more than the trouble I go to spank
you awake almost every day.

Was the intent to bias the results?

You are off on a line of babble arising out of being ignorant of the
subject matter. Read the study, stupid.

Prove you have it, by answering a couple of questions based on content,
and I'll debate you as long as you like. And explain the study to you.

Or was that just accidental?

Non sequitur. You don't know that you are asking about so you are asking
nonsense questions. Read the study.

Kane wrote
He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.
http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm

Golly, maybe the BIAS was NOT acidental!

Actually he was a believer, as you would know if you read the link I
provided to the original interview of him by a parent's magazine, in
using corporal punishment to teach. HE said he was surprised to learn
that punishment showed MORE street entries per child, than simply
teaching with some simple techniques.

Did this biased PUKE actually pass any PEER REVIEW?

Embry is a biased "PUKE?" A man that is a well respected and skillful
researcher and is hired to provide programs for cities and states about
safety issues? That Dr. Embry?

The man that once believed in effectiveness of spanking and had his own
research show otherwise? That "PUKE?" Why don't you ask him yourself.
I've both e-mailed and spoken to him by phone. And in snail mail. Surely
he'll love to discuss this issue with someone as well informed as
you...the man that teaches cats dog tricks and helps his paramour with
child care.

What did he do, find some flaky liberal pukes like himself
to agree with him?

I don't know his politics. You suddenly do?
You know Dr. Embry, do you? Or have researched him enough to make a
qualified statement as to his politics and biases?

Is THAT what PEER REVIEW is all about?

I do not think his study was for publication in a journal. He had no
interest, apparently. I can't say it wasn't since I've not looked to see.

He was not collecting data from the public. He was watching people he
and his staff had taught a few simple parenting skills to, three as I
recall, so simple even YOU could do them, and recording the results.

Why not read the study, Greg. Doan has it. 0:- doesn't he?

Finding people with the SAME BIAS HE HAS?

"Finding people?"

You couldn't mean his demographic target group for the study could you?

Why not read the study, or just ask Doan, and find out.

I don't think I say anything about them to indicate they were liberals,
or biased for non-spanking, or non-punitive methods.

Even Embry, which Doan likes to take up as one of my "lies," used
language describing one of the techniques...a time out....a brief
punishment.

If you read the study you'll see that the way this "time out" is
performed in fact it is an intense connection with "mommy" while the
child watches and is coached by her as other children play safely.

I disagreed that Embry called it 'punishment' when it's highly
questionable the child would experience it that way. It could have been,
and such actions usually are, much more of a reward. I simple call it
teaching. And so did he elsewhere in the study, after having used the
word "time out" as "brief punishment."

That would hardly make it true that I "lied," as disagreement is not a lie.

Now, do you wish to debate the Embry study, or do you wish to babble
pointless fact deficient unrelated and stupid questions at me about it?

If the latter, don't waste your time. I'll simply let people see you
make a fool of yourself again.

Like Doan does. (to you every time you fall for his bull**** and lies)

0:-

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

**Greegor**

Kane wrote
The only valid definitions are those made by law?

Of a LEGAL term, yes, and an attempt by any
extreme minority kook fringe to define such a
common term "THEIR WAY" is dishonest or worse.

Redefining such a clearly defined word for the purposes
of RHETORIC is hardly Roberts Rules old chap.

**0:->**

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself. It was YOU who said that the children
in this
study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
a lie
and I have proven so!

No you haven't. I quoted someone, and said I was quoting someone, liar.

Here's YOUR posted comments with mine that SHOWS you know this, and are
lying through your little monkey teeth. 0:-
Doan wrote:

The Lie:

"Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before
had children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per
hour."

Still don't know where I got that, eh? R R R R RR

NOT FROM THE EMBRY STUDY!

Didn't say I did. 0:-

Ever think there might be commentary from other sources on the study.
Authoritative commentary. By people that know the study in more depth
than was printed in the report?
.............

See stupid monkeyboy?

And in my February 22nd 06, 05:04 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
I pointed out that YOU were lying by attempting to claim YOU had the
study when THIS quoted paragraph FROM the study is considered. Notice it
IS instructions to the observers of child and parent behaviors to NOTE
the "hitting" and other use of force?

Man you are stupid, considering there is a record of everything you
stupidly claim and lie about.

"

0:-
external usenet poster

Posts: n/a
Default The Embry study: What it actually said.

Doan wrote:
Yup! And get this, the Embry study has nothing to do with
spanking at all. He has been lying about it all along.
He is caught in a lie and now trying very hard to extricate
himself.

Doan

[[[ My response ]]]

From page 23, instructions to the six (with the author making the
seventh) observers.

Item 11.

Parental Use of Punishment. If the parent used force (pulling, pushing,
squeezing hard, or HITTING)[emphasis mine] as a consequence for a
child's play in the street during an interval (of observation), the
observers coded this force as "PUNISHMENT." [emphasis mine again].

I'd say "hitting" falls under "spanking" descriptively. YMMV

So Doan, the study "has nothing to do with spanking at all?"
......

Get it yet, Doan?

You lied, you compounded your lies many times, and are doing so again now.

Anyone interested in the history of this resurrected nonsense of Doan's
is invited to read the central post that showed clearly that he was
lying then, thus lying now.

http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/gr...es/142745.html

He does this periodically as a way to harass rather than debate.
Harassment is what he is about, not information, not logical argument,
nothing but monkeyboy tricks.

0:-

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

**[email protected]**

0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.

Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?

A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)

He did so. And was kind enough to supply me with a copy personally.

Couldn't even keep your story straight, Kane? You first said that you,
as a researcher,
keep a copy in your garage. Remember? I have it. I don't have it. I
read it. I didn't
read it. That's your problem, Kane. You lied so many times that you
can't even keep
your straight! ;-)

It was YOU who said that the children
in this
study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
a lie
and I have proven so!

No, that is not what I said. And you've proven nothing of the sort.

I just did again, LIAR!

I have, as others have, quoted Dr. Embry in an interview given to a
parenting magazine, where HE said that. Not I. It did not come from the
study, nor did I claim it did.

Here is what I said:

Hahaha! Couldn't keep your story straight. Here is your exact words:

"No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries
as
children that were trained not to enter the street."

You know that is false because your have a copy of the study yourself.
So now
you have a terrible dilema: either you are too stupid to understand
the study
or you a terrible liar. Which is it, Kane? Your mom must be proud!
;-)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...bd31d77da522f6

... in response to a post from ChrisScaife:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:01:06 +1300, "ChrisScaife"

wrote:
I posted the start of this thread on the wrong news group.
I am now aware that it might be more of interest here. Not much was
said
before this one so...

"dejablues" wrote in message
...
Burning up an occupied dollhouse and gazing upon roadkill?
Uh................

An image is worth a thousand words.
Especially to a young child for whom language itself is a novelty.

Say you have a little toddler who runs to the car, straight across
the road
when it's time to go...
What will make her/him stop and think next time ?

1: "How many-spank- times-spank- have I told-spank-you-spank... not
to -spank- run out-spank- in the road-spank-"

2: The mental image of a squashed animal on the side of the road with
the
words "That can happen to children too if they run out in the road"

3: Reader's suggestion here...?

Take your pick, but everyday, for someone going "Uh...." at road kill
it is
their dead child they are looking at.
Some things we can't afford to let them learn the hard way!

You haven't heard what the Embry study revealed, have you?

Let me explain.

1- If your child is so young they cannot be trusted NOT to run into
traffic, they are too young to be supervised without contact...that is
you should have a hold of them or have adequate barriers in the way.

2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.

Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.

3- Children, even toddler's, to the suprize of Dr Dennis Embry who
thought punishment models would be effective, were seen to attempt
traffic entries MORE when punished, and LESS when given instruction on
where to play to be safe.

http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html

The study, the very first one of its kind, and so far not refuted by
any other studies, is about 25 years old.

He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.

http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm

Humans simply don't work well on a punishment model.

Hihihi! The study employed punishment, STUPID!

It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.

More lies! ;-)

Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.

So you are calling for a ban on ALL PUNISHMENT???

Of course if all they have known is externally applied
sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
and ethics.

Hihihi! You don't have any conscience nor ethics!

Ever noticed?

Yup! I see it every time you posted. ;-)

AF

Kane

Stupid!

It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
socks
out to con you out of a copy of this study.

You don't have the study yet, Doan. And you cannot provide a link to it.
If you can why have you not? Surely you would have given it to becca?
And Alina?

And claimed to have sent one to Alina. Is that a lie too? ;-) Where
are
the three people that you claimed to have sent copies to? You are not
a good LIAR, Kane! ;-)

Why the requirement to have "postage paid" for you to "ship it" to them,
Doan? 0:-

AAA Foundation charged more than $20.00 to send it.

You are hilariously
STUPID, Kane!

You are lying again. With becca I said she might be. With Alina it's
pretty obvious. A sometimes poster, with almost NO history, and only two
posts since 'her' short string of posts to this newsgroup (your ass
covering, Doan).

Hihihi! So you were wrong about becca. Did you apologize to her?

'Alina's' first known post to Usenet, Doan, was Jan 24 2004 just about
the time we were most engaged in our discussion of your lies about
having the Embry study.

So how did you sent a copy of the study, Kane? ;-)

'Aline' is the name of a nun who is a well known on the campus where you
are. That's how original you are at lying.

Hihihi! That's how stupid you are.

'Alina's' last known post was Feb 13, 2006. And so sparce a posting
history, outside our newsgroup, aps, that's obvious it was to create a
trace to give your sock credibility.

Hihihi! That's funny!

'She' would jump into a thread, drop a comment, ONCE, and disappear, and
not respond to other posters answering 'her' post.

A single post, out of all her posts, to a Spanish language ng called
alt.mexico, so obviously a 'demonstration' sockerage that it made me
laugh for a week.

And 'she' didn't even reply in Spanish:

Hihihi! So did you sent a copy?

"
From: Alina - view profile
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2004 9:34 am
Email: (Alina)
Groups: alt.mexico
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

"?" wrote in message
...
alguien sobre aquí ser capaz de señalarme en la dirección derecha
cuando me
gustaría a emmigrate a México de Inglaterra y estaría interesado en
cualquier información o sitios que pueden ser capaces de ayudar a
conseguir
este abogados etc...

What kind of info are you after, exactly? When do you wish to move? "

And the question ALREADY HAD that in it, stupid.

The poster YOU responded to (likely after looking up a translation...if
you weren't too lazy and stupid and tried to figure it out with a little
Spanish you might know) simply asked if there was anyone that could
refer him or her TO A WEBSITE with information (and attorneys)
concerning immigrating to Mexico, coming from England.

YOUR response was not logical, non sequitur of the worst kind. He
already ASKED FOR WHAT HE WANTED, though oddly poorly spoken, in
Spanish. Misplaced plural and singular, a turn of phrase I've never seen
in Spanish before....like a clumsy attempt to indicate which direction
'he' wished to immigrate that turns into a conglomeration of two
countries. Very strange stuff here, Doan.

In fact there was a gross error that puzzles me.

But then he's a British nitwit probably sexual pervert racist ****ant,
that YOU picked at random to try and make your sock credible with a
SINGLE post, that could have, had you been a Mexican citizen, a simple
answer to his request. An URL to a website providing what he clumsily
asked for in his broken Spanish.

Why, I wonder, didn't "Alina" a usually polite and helpful person,
simply answer him? R R R R R R.

Alina's last post, after I had been questioning 'her' credibility by
asking what happened to her....gone for months.

You ARE stupid, Doan.

Hilarious! The STUPID FOOL is you!

"From: Alina - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 2:12 pm
Email: "Alina"
Groups: rec.arts.tv, alt.gossip.celebrities, misc.kids,
alt.parenting.solutions
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Carseats are overrated . "

Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.

The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
No, that is not what Straus found. Parents may chose to spank because
their attempt to use non-cp failed. That suggests they do not have good
non-cp methods, and I've pointed that out.

Hihihi! That still meant the link you saw with spanking is also seen
with
the non-cp alternatives in these parents. Got it, STUPID?

Well, I might if you could have someone translate it into standard
English, bright little monkeyboy.

There is a bit too much of non-cp PUNISHMENT going on, instead of
learning about and applying developmentally appropriate tactics in
parenting.

Citatation please!

To what? There are two points above. And If YOU wish to learn about
developmental appropriate tactics in parenting, there are hundreds of
websites listing such information.

And the field of child development is old and broad with a great deal of
research. Look it up, stupid.

Many have learned to do so and do not have to revert to spanking.

That does not mean they were never-spanked, STUPID!

I don't see a claim to that effect by me.

Remember observer?

Yup! He pointed out your stupidity every time, just like me! ;-)

Nope. He fumbled all over himself, came back recently as a sock, has
disappeared again, and 'tried' non-cp parenting and couldn't to it.

Hihihi! He kicked your butt everytime. You are still fuming over it.

It was pointed out to him that likely he had not let go of PUNISHMENT
methods, just CP. And that punishment can easily be misused.

But you don't call for a ban on punishment, right? ;-)

That's why when advocates for non CP methods discuss it they refer to
NON PUNISHMENT methods to replace CP, not PUNISHMENT methods.

We are quite aware of what we are saying and why.

With nothing to back it up. ;-)

Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
children.

Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
in the last 5 years!
Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.

Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
again. ;-)

Let me see now, you do not know what community I refer to buy you say
you "caught me?" That, Doan, would of course, be either a lie, or
stupid, or both. I vote for both.

I asked you what community. You can't name any because there are
none.
That's the lie, STUPID!

Remembered? All because they used spanking as
part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.

Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
remembered?

And after further research what did I report to this newsgroup, Doan?

That spanking is part of a non-violent parenting. Remembered? ;-)

You are attempting to mislead, by omission. Do you know what one
dictionary definition of lying is? Attempting to mislead by omission.

That fit you PERFECTLY! ;-)

Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:- ) in such a closed
society?

Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?

Yours?

YOU wrote HOMOcide, Doan. Not I.

You were the one that pointed it out. I didn't see the connection.
You did!

In a large portion of the homeschooling community. And among a very
large group of people from many walks of life that I have known over the
years.

Hihihi! Homeschooler don't spank???

And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
non-spanked children.

How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?

No, the logic of the pro spanking advocated, the compulsives.

You claimed that the Hutterites, because they spank, had no murders in
the past five years. (Of course they don't seem to be entirely violent
crime free, now do they? R R R R R)

That's not my claim. You were the one that did the "research" and
claimed
that they have no homicide, not I.

That would equate with murders being the more common provenance of
NON-SPANKERS, would it not?

That do not follow logic!

Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?

Did I say that?

Logically, by claiming a spanking community has had no murders, yes.

Did I said the USA has no murder? The USA is a spanking country so
how could I make such a claim? Got it, STUPID!

Or, you might have to admit that spanking is NOT the reason there are no
murders for the past five years in the Hutterite community.

You were the one that made the claim. Why the change now?

Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.

Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.

Being unspanked is so unremarkable, to those that haven't been they
often do not mention it. No reason to. It's the absence of an act.

Hihihi! Like Einstein?

I would hardly mention casually that I have had never been held up at
gun point, but far more likely to mention it if I had.

Are you saying that 90+% of people have been held up at gun point?
YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.

Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!

If you wish to live in an oppressive fascist society.

Like the USA? ;-)

If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.

You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)

Yep.

Is this why Singapore oppresses it's citizens? Because they have had a
war on terror going on for all these years?

Is that why? ;-)

Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.

Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?

Yes.

Hahaha! I don't believe LIARS!

You seem to have forgotten the posts where I cited (and source linked
to) rising youth crime rates in Singapore, now haven't you, Doan? 0:-

There should be, if this is the bastion of non - crime you seem to have
deluded yourself into believing, almost no crime at all, particularly
against children.

http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/c_abuse.html
Seems the do indeed have such a problem with child abuse.

All countries have problems with child abuse, Kane. Are you this
desperate?
Have you checked Sweden? Here is what I found through MEDLINE:

Physical child abuse in Sweden: a study of police reports between 1986
and 1996.

Lindell C, Svedin CG.

Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Health
Sciences, Linkopi
ng University, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden duri
ng 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased
number of
police reports on physical child abuse. The study focuses on abuse
committed by
a parent or carer and aims at analyzing the victim and the perpetrator,
family e
nvironment, injuries and judicial consequences of physical abuse.
METHOD: All po
lice reports on physical child abuse (0-14 years old) in a designated
police dis
trict in Sweden during 1986-1996 were examined, as well as any judicial
proceedi
ngs that followed. RESULTS: Our research yielded three major findings.
Firstly,
a large part of the increased number of police reports had to do with
violence o
utside the family: 145 children (0.5 per 1000 children) were found
abused within
the families, by a parent or a carer. Secondly, there was a tendency
toward mal
es abusing boys and females abusing girls, and the biological father
was the mos
t frequent suspected perpetrator. Thirdly, 20% of the police reports
led to pros
ecutions, and the investigations were time consuming. Known risk
factors for phy
sical abuse, such as unemployment, violent spouse relations, substance
and drug
abuse and poor mental health were found in several families, often
among the pro
secuted perpetrators. When examining incidence of physical abuse,
Sweden was com
parable to the other Scandinavian countries, where legislation and
social contex
t are similar. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of physically abused children
that have
been reported to the police in Sweden has increased during the
investigated peri
od. Familiar risk factors are present in our study, accompanied by new
findings,
such as, for instance, a gender preference towards the abuse victim.

PMID: 11465787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Funny that the anti-spanking law did nothing to reduce it.

http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/do...abuse%22%20%22
Not uncommon for societies that are indulging in the self delusion that
spanking is a loving act.

It's part of "non-violent" parenting was your claim, Kane! ;-)

I find it unconsciounable that a society as "crime free" as Singapore
even needs to make an attitude study on child abuse. It just shows HOW
FAR BEHIND THEY ARE SOCIALLY, and I attribute that to their oppression
by their government.

From the study above:

"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
After the findings of the study were summarized, a definition of child
abuse and
neglect was proposed. The definition took into account the views of the
community
that was sampled, but it also included within its scope childrearing
practices which
may be detrimental to children and was sensitive to the legal situation
in Singapore.
Firstly, the definition made a distinction between maltreatment and abuse.
Secondly, abuse was further divided into three main types. The proposed
definitions
were as follows:
Maltreatment of a child occurs in any behaviour, that has or is likely
to have a net
damaging or adverse consequence on a child, whether or not intended, by
any person
having the custody, charge or care of the child, or from whom the child
could
reasonably expect proper treatment (with the exception of sexual
maltreatment which
can be perpetrated by any adult).
Abuse is maltreatment resulting from wilful action on the part of a person
responsible for a child (with the exception of sexual abuse which can be
perpetrated
by any adult). It is broken down into three types, namely child abuse,
child sexual
abuse and neglect. These types correspond to the categories found in the
CYPA.
It is suggested that child abuse be defined as comprising wilful
physical and/or
emotional maltreatment; child sexual abuse be defined as the wilful sexual
maltreatment of the child; and child neglect as the failure to provide
adequate care
amounting to wilful maltreatment.
Conclusion
106
As a result of this study, some recommendations were also made. There were
suggestions that:
1. Various organizations and individuals should be encouraged to conduct
more
research in the local context;
2. There should be a central register of child abuse and neglect, which
can collect
data on official as well as unofficial cases;
3. The public should be educated to report child abuse and neglect;
4. Public education should feature emotional maltreatment, although they
should
not forget about the other three forms of child abuse and neglect;
5. There should be therapy for the victims in order to meet their
psychological,
emotional and social needs and not just treatment for their physical
injuries;
6. There should be treatment for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect;
7. Prevention programmes should target "high risk" parents and provide
parent
education and support;
8. Professionals should be trained in the proper management of cases of
child
abuse & neglect and multi-disciplinary "child protection" teams should
be set
up;
9. A law to make reporting mandatory could be considered."

They KNOW, in other words that they have a serious problem with child
abuse, but that they have NOT done much about it in Singapore.

http://www.corpun.com/sgd00005.htm
The is story is interesting as it supports a number of claims
non-spanking advocates have made in this ng.

One I point to, that is obvious, is that caning was NOT working. Even
being hit that hard did not stop the girls from being noisy.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?s...8126 6738B252

One of the most violent places on the planet, barring war, is South
Africa. You ARE aware they use CP on children there, are you not?

Why did it work in Singapore and not in SA, Doan?

How about Sweden?

Could it be CP is not the critical element?

Neither are the non-cp alternatives?

That it's actually NOT needed to raise children, or run a country well?

Tell that to the Singaporean. ;-)

http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html
In fact, in Singapore society "caning" children is considered
non-abusive. Do YOU personally think hitting a child with the typical
cane they use (usually a piece of Rattan...so you know what that is?) is
not abusive?

They cane adults too! ;-)

This is what THEIR kind of government has brought them too. Creating
what appears on the surface to be an orderly and healthy society, while
rot such as this is going on under cover.

http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/6.2.htm
... While most literature in this area concentrates either on the rights
guaranteed by the Convention or issues raised by studying child abuse
across cultures, this Comment incorporates elements of both approaches
into its analysis. Examination of the child abuse statutes and relevant
policies of Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Indonesia reveals that
child maltreatment is particularly influenced by cultural relativism.
This analysis further indicates that cultural attitudes, a government's
regulatory strength within the familial context, and economic prosperity
all contribute to obscure the fine line between child abuse and child
discipline. Consequently, a full realization of the benefits guaranteed
by Article 19 in these four countries may not be achieved until children
are understood as rights bearers within the family as well as in
society. ...

It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
ultimate socialist controlled society.

And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:

http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html

Hahaha! Anotheer of your "formidable research skill", Kane?

No comment on the content, then? R R R R R R R

I don't need too because it's funny that you took a 180 degree turn on
the
Hutterites. ;-0

Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:-

Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
of a sick society.

Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
mother would approve of you calling other a "smelly-****"! ;-)

I don't have to "think" it, dummy. She told me so. She was alive at the
time I made the remark. She looked at the quotes from Fern supporting
the beating of children by church members and was more offended than I.

Hihihi!

We are open and honest with our feelings in our family. Unlike you.

Open and honest? That's a laugh!

And what would be sick about being against the self delusion that
spanking is not hitting, and that spanking is not simply assault under
color of law?

It's part of "non-violent" parenting were you your claim! ;-)

It's just fact.

To stupid people like you! ;-)

AF

**0:->**

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
The only valid definitions are those made by law?

Of a LEGAL term, yes, and an attempt by any
extreme minority kook fringe to define such a
common term "THEIR WAY" is dishonest or worse.

When did "spanking" become solely a "legal term," Greg?

What would you call it if the law wasn't involved....and what was it
called before there was a law protecting it?

Redefining such a clearly defined word for the purposes
of RHETORIC is hardly Roberts Rules old chap.

"Redefining?

Could you explain precisely how it's being redefined.

Here is my definition.

But for the delusion represented by protection color of law allowing
spanking it would be called assault.

Now show me how that redefines. I am defining it as IT IS, protected by
law, just like other laws.

Robbery is the taking of another's goods1 regardless of the legal
definition, is it not, Greg?

Spanking is the hitting of a child, sanctioned as legal by statute.

Where is the redefinition?

I see hitting and assault as being redefined by you kooks and protected,
temporarily, by law.

Just as it was legal to own slaves. Just as it was legal to beat your
wife. Just as it was legal to torture animals. Just as it was legal to
execute children for some crimes. Just as it was legal to economically
exploit children. Just as it was legal to sell opiates without
prescription. Just as it was legal to flog adults in the name of
punishment.

Things change as times change, and we learn and thus grow more moral.

Corporal punishment of children will go the way of corporal punishment
of adults. It will be called, finally, what it is, assault.

0:-

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

**0:->**

A typical police department instruction pamphlet on the use of force by
police officers.

Greg and Doan think that the police use of a baton is a fit analogy to
the use of spanking by parents.

Or is that not what you said or meant, boys?

Let's see if Greg or Doan can figure out how to apply this to parents
disciplining children, unless of course they wish to claim that spanking
is claimed by parents to be used for things other than discipline
(teaching).

And note, before you get too carried away, I have never claimed force
can and should be used with children. It's how you teach a baby to take
a bath. 0:-

And in fact, dipwad brothers, the police are far more careful in the
legal use of the baton than parents are in the legal use of spanking.

At least they provide a clear explanation so that the possiblity,
chuckle of CROSSING THE LINE TO ABUSE is less likely out of ignorance.

http://www.policebatons.com/mptc/uof3.html
....
Chapter Three:
The Monadnock Baton Chart
INTRODUCTION

The use of force by officers is permissible when used to effect an
arrest; to overcome resistance; to prevent escape; in self-defense; or
in the defense of others. The force used must be objectively reasonable
based on facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time the
force is used. Officers should take into consideration; the severity of
the crime involved; the actions of the subject; whether the subject
poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or to others;
and officer/subject factors. Officers' decisions are often made in
circumstances that are stressful and ever changing, thus officers are
not required to determine the least intrusive measure of force that
might resolve the situation. Officers are required to select an
objectively reasonable option given the totality of the circumstances
known to them at the time.

Determining whether the force used is objectively reasonable requires a
careful balancing of factors including, but not limited to, the probable
severity of injury to officers, subjects and others as a result of the
application of force. Target selection based on medical evaluations of
the vulnerability of the various parts of the human body and potential
injury to subjects may assist officers in reducing injuries to subjects.
In the "Monadnock Baton Chart", the potential trauma to the body has
been designated by colors denoting the level of risk incurred by the
application of physical force by means of a baton.

ESCALATION AND DE-ESCALATION OF TRAUMA

[[[ chart at this point, showing target areas on the body ]]]

The concept of Green, Yellow and Red Target Areas of the Monadnock Baton
Chart was developed to assist officers in assessing the probability of
injury to subjects. When time allows, officers' use of force should take
into consideration escalating and de-escalating options based on threat
assessment, officer/subject factors and the probable severity of injury.
THE CONCEPT IN ACTION

Green Target Areas are for confrontations where the subject is resisting
an officer or another. Yellow Target Areas are for confrontations where
the subject is assaulting an officer or another, or when force applied
to a Green Target Area fails to overcome resistance or does not
correspond with the threat level. Red Target Areas are for
confrontations where the subject is attempting to cause serious bodily
injury to an officer or another; or situations where force to lower
level target areas fail to overcome the resistance and end the
confrontation. Physical force directed at Red Target Areas pose a
greater risk of injury to the subject and in certain areas may
constitute deadly force because of the probability of causing death.

MONADNOCK BATON CHART AND THE RESISTANCE-RESPONSE MODEL

The target areas of the Monadnock Baton Chart are included in a
Resistance-Response Model as illustrated.

In a situation where an officer is suddenly assaulted by a subject with
a knife it would be reasonable for the officer to utilize a firearm.
However, circumstances might force an officer to utilize a baton in
response to such a threat. Given the fact that the officer is facing a
potential lethal threat any target area or technique would be acceptable
including jabs, spins and chops to RED AREAS. A note of caution should
be made that any officer who decides to use a less than lethal level of
force in response to a lethal threat does so at a high risk to his/her
personal safety, the safety of others and risks the possibility that the
subject will evade apprehension.
UPDATES AND FLEXIBILITY

Last year the Monadnock Police Training Council Updated its Baton Chart
to more closely adhere to the current definition of acceptable use of
force. The chart was analyzed from a medical and legal stand point to
ensure its accuracy. As a result, some of the color-coded
classifications were lowered. To learn more about why the Council made
these changes you can read the 1998 Monadnock Baton Chart Release by
clicking here.

It is important to note that Monadnock still supports the initial
Monadnock Baton Chart, called the Escalation of Trauma Chart. In fact,
the Council would support any agency or instructor who finds it
necessary to raise a specific target area to a higher color-coded
classification; for example, the collarbone from a Yellow to a Red
Target Area. Any agency or instructor who elects to do so must clearly
document that action. The Council would not support any change whereby a
specific Target Area's color-code is lowered; for example, changing the
collarbone from a Yellow to a Green Target Area.
....

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

**0:->**

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?

A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)

Citation.

He did so. And was kind enough to supply me with a copy personally.

Couldn't even keep your story straight, Kane? You first said that you,
as a researcher,
keep a copy in your garage. Remember? I have it. I don't have it. I
read it. I didn't
read it. That's your problem, Kane. You lied so many times that you
can't even keep
your straight! ;-)

You are lying. What would having a copy in my garage have to do with how
I got that copy.

It was YOU who said that the children
in this
study who were spanked had the highest rate of street entries. It was
a lie
and I have proven so!
No, that is not what I said. And you've proven nothing of the sort.

I just did again, LIAR!

I see no citations. No support for the claims you are making.

I have, as others have, quoted Dr. Embry in an interview given to a
parenting magazine, where HE said that. Not I. It did not come from the
study, nor did I claim it did.

Here is what I said:

Hahaha! Couldn't keep your story straight. Here is your exact words:

"No, I did not claim the study showed any such thing. I stated simply
that spanked children were known to have twice as many street entries
as
children that were trained not to enter the street."

Yep. And I got that information from authoritative sources. It would be
a mistake if YOU could show that there is research showing a contrary
outcome. It would be a lie if I KNEW of that research before hand and
still made MY claim.

YOU are lying.

You know that is false because your have a copy of the study yourself.
So now
you have a terrible dilema: either you are too stupid to understand
the study
or you a terrible liar. Which is it, Kane? Your mom must be proud!
;-)

I have the study. I did not say the above in relationship to the study.
Notice I even say that I did not claim the study showed it.

You are lying again, with the evidence right here on the page, above.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...bd31d77da522f6

... in response to a post from ChrisScaife:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:01:06 +1300, "ChrisScaife"

wrote:
I posted the start of this thread on the wrong news group.
I am now aware that it might be more of interest here. Not much was
said
before this one so...

"dejablues" wrote in message
...
Burning up an occupied dollhouse and gazing upon roadkill?
Uh................

An image is worth a thousand words.
Especially to a young child for whom language itself is a novelty.

Say you have a little toddler who runs to the car, straight across
the road
when it's time to go...
What will make her/him stop and think next time ?

1: "How many-spank- times-spank- have I told-spank-you-spank... not
to -spank- run out-spank- in the road-spank-"

2: The mental image of a squashed animal on the side of the road with
the
words "That can happen to children too if they run out in the road"

3: Reader's suggestion here...?

Take your pick, but everyday, for someone going "Uh...." at road kill
it is
their dead child they are looking at.
Some things we can't afford to let them learn the hard way!

You haven't heard what the Embry study revealed, have you?

Let me explain.

1- If your child is so young they cannot be trusted NOT to run into
traffic, they are too young to be supervised without contact...that is
you should have a hold of them or have adequate barriers in the way.

2- Children that are raised by a parent that support and encourages
the child as they explore, tend to look to the parent in new
situations...and even in the old ones, still.

Hence they are faaaar less likely to run toward traffic.

3- Children, even toddler's, to the suprize of Dr Dennis Embry who
thought punishment models would be effective, were seen to attempt
traffic entries MORE when punished, and LESS when given instruction on
where to play to be safe.

http://www.neverhitachild.org/embry.html

The study, the very first one of its kind, and so far not refuted by
any other studies, is about 25 years old.

He has a whole web site on how this principle works in other things as
well, where he apparently continued to look at the learning models
that are proven to work.

http://www.paxis.org/Default.htm

Humans simply don't work well on a punishment model.

Hihihi! The study employed punishment, STUPID!

So? I didn't claim it didn't. I claimed that the use of the word
"punishment" to describe (and I've told you this many times before,
publicly, liar) by Dr. Embry to describe a parent instructing a child in
a time out to "watch children playing properly" was not what I
considered punishment.

A disagreement is not a lie, liar.

It's been shown again and again. First of all it's way too hard to
sort out the distracting experience of violence tied to a learning
situation, and secondly it can have dangerous side effects...just as
he found...MORE attempts to do the proscribed behavior.

More lies! ;-)

"Lies?" My opinion is a lie? Opinions aren't lie, stupid.

Even adults show strong tendencies such as this.

So you are calling for a ban on ALL PUNISHMENT???

Nope. I'm calling for further examination of it. And if it shows that
I'm correct, a ban on it.

Of course if all they have known is externally applied
sanctions...through the device of punishment....they come to believe
in them as an adult and are somewhat immune to appeals to conscience
and ethics.

Hihihi! You don't have any conscience nor ethics!

Now we know you are lying.

Ever noticed?

Yup! I see it every time you posted. ;-)

Interesting that you'd take my comment that the use of externally
applied sanctions through the use of punishment tends to create an
immunity to appeals to conscience and claim I have that problem.

It's you that got physically punished.

AF

Kane

Stupid!

You should sign off that way all time. At least it's honest to sign
yourself as "Stupid!"

It is also funny that you claimed Alina and beccafromlalaland were my
socks
out to con you out of a copy of this study.
You don't have the study yet, Doan. And you cannot provide a link to it.
If you can why have you not? Surely you would have given it to becca?
And Alina?

And claimed to have sent one to Alina. Is that a lie too? ;-) Where
are
the three people that you claimed to have sent copies to? You are not
a good LIAR, Kane! ;-)

Well, since Alina is you, stupid, I'd hardly expect YOU to admit you got
it when you had been claiming at the time you had it. 0:-

Why the requirement to have "postage paid" for you to "ship it" to them,
Doan? 0:-

AAA Foundation charged more than $20.00 to send it.

Oh, you wanted to see if you could turn a profit for document that was
produced by someone else?

I paid for postage, though it was not requested, and it was not anywhere
near $20, from Dr. Embry.

I thought you said you had it available electronically. 0:- R R R R R
....liar.

You are hilariously
STUPID, Kane!
You are lying again. With becca I said she might be. With Alina it's
pretty obvious. A sometimes poster, with almost NO history, and only two
posts since 'her' short string of posts to this newsgroup (your ass
covering, Doan).

Hihihi! So you were wrong about becca. Did you apologize to her?

Yep.

'Alina's' first known post to Usenet, Doan, was Jan 24 2004 just about
the time we were most engaged in our discussion of your lies about
having the Embry study.

So how did you sent a copy of the study, Kane? ;-)

To the address "Alina" gave to me. I got no response after that.

'Aline' is the name of a nun who is a well known on the campus where you
are. That's how original you are at lying.

Hihihi! That's how stupid you are.

No, Doan, it's how obvious and stupid YOU are. I've told you I'm very
familiar with the campus there. People, places, events. You should have
factored that into choosing a name for your sock.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/troja...AP_gerber.html

By the way, I've met Sr. Aline a number of times, stupid.

Tell me, is she still living? I'll drop her a card if so.

'Alina's' last known post was Feb 13, 2006. And so sparce a posting
history, outside our newsgroup, aps, that's obvious it was to create a
trace to give your sock credibility.

Hihihi! That's funny!

Yes, you are pitifully funny most of the time.

By the way, do you happen to know if Alina Alexeenko is still a post
doctoral fellow at USC?

'She' would jump into a thread, drop a comment, ONCE, and disappear, and
not respond to other posters answering 'her' post.

A single post, out of all her posts, to a Spanish language ng called
alt.mexico, so obviously a 'demonstration' sockerage that it made me
laugh for a week.

And 'she' didn't even reply in Spanish:

Hihihi! So did you sent a copy?

Sure. You got it didn't you? Or was it a phony address.

"
From: Alina - view profile
Date: Wed, Apr 28 2004 9:34 am
Email: (Alina)
Groups: alt.mexico
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

"?" wrote in message
...
alguien sobre aquí ser capaz de señalarme en la dirección derecha
cuando me
gustaría a emmigrate a México de Inglaterra y estaría interesado en
cualquier información o sitios que pueden ser capaces de ayudar a
conseguir
este abogados etc...

What kind of info are you after, exactly? When do you wish to move? "

And the question ALREADY HAD that in it, stupid.

The poster YOU responded to (likely after looking up a translation...if
you weren't too lazy and stupid and tried to figure it out with a little
Spanish you might know) simply asked if there was anyone that could
refer him or her TO A WEBSITE with information (and attorneys)
concerning immigrating to Mexico, coming from England.

YOUR response was not logical, non sequitur of the worst kind. He
already ASKED FOR WHAT HE WANTED, though oddly poorly spoken, in
Spanish. Misplaced plural and singular, a turn of phrase I've never seen
in Spanish before....like a clumsy attempt to indicate which direction
'he' wished to immigrate that turns into a conglomeration of two
countries. Very strange stuff here, Doan.

In fact there was a gross error that puzzles me.

But then he's a British nitwit probably sexual pervert racist ****ant,
that YOU picked at random to try and make your sock credible with a
SINGLE post, that could have, had you been a Mexican citizen, a simple
answer to his request. An URL to a website providing what he clumsily
asked for in his broken Spanish.

Why, I wonder, didn't "Alina" a usually polite and helpful person,
simply answer him? R R R R R R.

Alina's last post, after I had been questioning 'her' credibility by
asking what happened to her....gone for months.

You ARE stupid, Doan.

Hilarious! The STUPID FOOL is you!

I'll leave that up to any poster to decide for themselves.

"From: Alina - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 13 2006 2:12 pm
Email: "Alina"
Groups: rec.arts.tv, alt.gossip.celebrities, misc.kids,
alt.parenting.solutions
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Carseats are overrated . "

Spanking has been linked to later life increase in substance abuse,
depression and other mental illness, and criminal behavior.

The same can be said about non-cp alternatives since, according
to Straus, spanking is the result of non-cp not working.
No, that is not what Straus found. Parents may chose to spank because
their attempt to use non-cp failed. That suggests they do not have good
non-cp methods, and I've pointed that out.

Hihihi! That still meant the link you saw with spanking is also seen
with
the non-cp alternatives in these parents. Got it, STUPID?
Well, I might if you could have someone translate it into standard
English, bright little monkeyboy.

There is a bit too much of non-cp PUNISHMENT going on, instead of
learning about and applying developmentally appropriate tactics in
parenting.

Citatation please!
To what? There are two points above. And If YOU wish to learn about
developmental appropriate tactics in parenting, there are hundreds of
websites listing such information.

And the field of child development is old and broad with a great deal of
research. Look it up, stupid.

Many have learned to do so and do not have to revert to spanking.

That does not mean they were never-spanked, STUPID!
I don't see a claim to that effect by me.

Remember observer?

Yup! He pointed out your stupidity every time, just like me! ;-)
Nope. He fumbled all over himself, came back recently as a sock, has
disappeared again, and 'tried' non-cp parenting and couldn't to it.

Hihihi! He kicked your butt everytime. You are still fuming over it.

He? R R R R .... you are reading impaired as well as brain damaged from
being spanked too high up the back as a child apparently?

It was pointed out to him that likely he had not let go of PUNISHMENT
methods, just CP. And that punishment can easily be misused.

But you don't call for a ban on punishment, right? ;-)

You answer your questions instead of waiting until I do? I would like to
see "punishment" phased out of the human experience. Given enough time
we might just do it.

I most certainly believe in doing away with physical punishment.

That's why when advocates for non CP methods discuss it they refer to
NON PUNISHMENT methods to replace CP, not PUNISHMENT methods.

We are quite aware of what we are saying and why.

With nothing to back it up. ;-)

Just a century or so of research.

Groups that have high incidence of crime, and especially violent crime
universally are also cultures that use corporal punishment on their
children.

Did you do your research on the Hutterites? ;-) Not a single homocide
in the last 5 years!
Gee, I wonder why you chose "five years." In the large community of
non-spankers I know there are no homicides for GENERATIONS.

Really? Which community is that? See? I caught you with your LIES
again. ;-)
Let me see now, you do not know what community I refer to buy you say
you "caught me?" That, Doan, would of course, be either a lie, or
stupid, or both. I vote for both.

I asked you what community. You can't name any because there are
none.

I can't name any because it's not an isolated community but simply many
families I know.

That's the lie, STUPID!

It can't be a lie, stupid.

Did you snip some of my reply? I believe I told you that.

Remembered? All because they used spanking as
part of their "non-violent" parenting! ;-)
Hardly a typical society, monkeyboy.

Hihihi! You were the one who touted them as a "non-violent" society,
remembered?
And after further research what did I report to this newsgroup, Doan?

That spanking is part of a non-violent parenting. Remembered? ;-)

Nope. That's not what I said at all. Now we KNOW you are lying. Cite me
please, with a link to my post.

You are attempting to mislead, by omission. Do you know what one
dictionary definition of lying is? Attempting to mislead by omission.

That fit you PERFECTLY! ;-)

What would I be leaving out? You are the one making continued claims and
refusing to use citations called for to prove your claims.

Do you have any idea now easy it would be to hide a homicide (learn to
spell unless you meant murders of homosexuals, 0:- ) in such a closed
society?

Hahaha, a freudean slip? ;-) Where is that non-spanking society?
Yours?

YOU wrote HOMOcide, Doan. Not I.

You were the one that pointed it out. I didn't see the connection.
You did!

Yes, and that is what I said. That is why the use of the word, "unless."

In a large portion of the homeschooling community. And among a very
large group of people from many walks of life that I have known over the
years.

Hihihi! Homeschooler don't spank???

Where did I claim that?

Do you not understand the words, "a large portion?"

And you see, of course that I did in fact answer your question, yet you
left your lie claiming I lied by not naming the "community." Tsk, Doan.

And according to your logic then, all murderers would have to be
non-spanked children.

How did you got that? Another logic of the anti-spanking zealotS?
No, the logic of the pro spanking advocated, the compulsives.

You claimed that the Hutterites, because they spank, had no murders in
the past five years. (Of course they don't seem to be entirely violent
crime free, now do they? R R R R R)

That's not my claim. You were the one that did the "research" and
claimed
that they have no homicide, not I.

You stated they had no murders in the past five years and did NOT
identify it as my comment, quoting me?

How interesting.

You took my word for it, yet you continually, by lying, call me a liar.

Funny that.

That would equate with murders being the more common provenance of
NON-SPANKERS, would it not?

That do not follow logic!

Oh? Then if spanking is the reason the Hutterites have had no murders
for five years, would not spanking not be the factor that causes people
to murder?

That's YOUR logic, Doan. Unless of course you wish to admit that
spanking may or may not be a factor in an isolated community such as the
Hutterites.

Those that are spanked, don't murder, right?

Did I say that?
Logically, by claiming a spanking community has had no murders, yes.

Did I said the USA has no murder?

I don't see any mention of the USA in my comments. Nor yours, so no, you
didn't, and of course, I didn't. 0:- You cute little monkeyboy.

The USA is a spanking country so
how could I make such a claim? Got it, STUPID!

You didn't make the claim and I didn't claim you made the claim. Got it,
Stupid monkeyboy? 0:-]

Or, you might have to admit that spanking is NOT the reason there are no
murders for the past five years in the Hutterite community.

You were the one that made the claim. Why the change now?

I changed it long ago when I interviewed a Hutterite spokesperson and
posted his comments to me here, Doan the liar.

Find us a few un-spanked murderers, monkeyboy.

Find us some un-spanked great men, "never-spanked" Kane0.
Being unspanked is so unremarkable, to those that haven't been they
often do not mention it. No reason to. It's the absence of an act.

Hihihi! Like Einstein?

Prove he was spanked.

I cannot prove a negative, nor can you, so YOU have the onus here, Doan.

I would hardly mention casually that I have had never been held up at
gun point, but far more likely to mention it if I had.

Are you saying that 90+% of people have been held up at gun point?
YOU ARE STUPID! ;-)

Nope. I'm not saying that. So who's being stupid here?

This claim of yours reminds me of your claim about Singapore.

Hihihi! Lower crime rate than Sweden!
If you wish to live in an oppressive fascist society.

Like the USA? ;-)

Your strawman, you feed him. 0:-

If you wish to live in a fascist government controlled society of
oppression you not only can control human behavior more, YOU CAN GET
AWAY WITH LYING ABOUT IT.

You meant like our government spying on its citizens? ;-)
Yep.

Is this why Singapore oppresses it's citizens? Because they have had a
war on terror going on for all these years?

Is that why? ;-)

I asked you.

Singapore has a huge hidden child abuse and crime problem. It pops to
the surface, then is quickly suppressed by the government. But you'll
buy about anything that supports your little insane rants, monkeyboy.

Hihihi! I should believe you instead, right?
Yes.

Hahaha! I don't believe LIARS!

Must be hard living with you then. You can't even be sure of your bank
account.

You seem to have forgotten the posts where I cited (and source linked
to) rising youth crime rates in Singapore, now haven't you, Doan? 0:-

There should be, if this is the bastion of non - crime you seem to have
deluded yourself into believing, almost no crime at all, particularly
against children.

http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/c_abuse.html
Seems the do indeed have such a problem with child abuse.

All countries have problems with child abuse, Kane. Are you this
desperate?

Really?

Have you checked Sweden? Here is what I found through MEDLINE:

Physical child abuse in Sweden: a study of police reports between 1986
and 1996.

The period that child abuse became an issue in Sweden, and REPORTING
began to reveal the extent of the previously unreported child abuse, and
during a time when a huge population of foreign born folks came to
Sweden from lands where the use of CP is notorious.

Lindell C, Svedin CG.

Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Faculty of Health
Sciences, Linkopi
ng University, Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden duri
ng 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an increased
number of
police reports on physical child abuse.

Prior those very same abuses were NOT being reported. Sweden itself was
a country with a harsh child rearing history, Doan. You are lying by
omission. I've told you this before. I've cited and linked to reports on
this very thing.

You've read it here before, and are lying, or have brain damage from all
that childhood spanking....or are you still into it?

The study focuses on abuse
committed by
a parent or carer and aims at analyzing the victim and the perpetrator,
family e
nvironment, injuries and judicial consequences of physical abuse.
METHOD: All po
lice reports on physical child abuse (0-14 years old) in a designated
police dis
trict in Sweden during 1986-1996 were examined, as well as any judicial
proceedi
ngs that followed. RESULTS: Our research yielded three major findings.
Firstly,
a large part of the increased number of police reports had to do with
violence o
utside the family: 145 children (0.5 per 1000 children) were found
abused within
the families, by a parent or a carer. Secondly, there was a tendency
toward mal
es abusing boys and females abusing girls, and the biological father
was the mos
t frequent suspected perpetrator. Thirdly, 20% of the police reports
led to pros
ecutions, and the investigations were time consuming. Known risk
factors for phy
sical abuse, such as unemployment, violent spouse relations, substance
and drug
abuse and poor mental health were found in several families, often
among the pro
secuted perpetrators. When examining incidence of physical abuse,
Sweden was com
parable to the other Scandinavian countries, where legislation and
social contex
t are similar. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of physically abused children
that have
been reported to the police in Sweden has increased during the
investigated peri
od. Familiar risk factors are present in our study, accompanied by new
findings,
such as, for instance, a gender preference towards the abuse victim.

PMID: 11465787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Funny that the anti-spanking law did nothing to reduce it.

NO, it made it illegal so IT GOT REPORTED when the same acts would not
have been reported before.

Your logic is as usual up your butt.

http://www.childrensociety.org.sg/do...abuse%22%20%22
Not uncommon for societies that are indulging in the self delusion that
spanking is a loving act.

It's part of "non-violent" parenting was your claim, Kane! ;-)

Non sequitur.

I made no such claim.

I find it unconsciounable that a society as "crime free" as Singapore
even needs to make an attitude study on child abuse. It just shows HOW
FAR BEHIND THEY ARE SOCIALLY, and I attribute that to their oppression
by their government.

From the study above:

"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
After the findings of the study were summarized, a definition of child
abuse and
neglect was proposed. The definition took into account the views of the
community
that was sampled, but it also included within its scope childrearing
practices which
may be detrimental to children and was sensitive to the legal situation
in Singapore.
Firstly, the definition made a distinction between maltreatment and abuse.
Secondly, abuse was further divided into three main types. The proposed
definitions
were as follows:
Maltreatment of a child occurs in any behaviour, that has or is likely
to have a net
damaging or adverse consequence on a child, whether or not intended, by
any person
having the custody, charge or care of the child, or from whom the child
could
reasonably expect proper treatment (with the exception of sexual
maltreatment which
can be perpetrated by any adult).
Abuse is maltreatment resulting from wilful action on the part of a person
responsible for a child (with the exception of sexual abuse which can be
perpetrated
by any adult). It is broken down into three types, namely child abuse,
child sexual
abuse and neglect. These types correspond to the categories found in the
CYPA.
It is suggested that child abuse be defined as comprising wilful
physical and/or
emotional maltreatment; child sexual abuse be defined as the wilful sexual
maltreatment of the child; and child neglect as the failure to provide
adequate care
amounting to wilful maltreatment.
Conclusion
106
As a result of this study, some recommendations were also made. There were
suggestions that:
1. Various organizations and individuals should be encouraged to conduct
more
research in the local context;
2. There should be a central register of child abuse and neglect, which
can collect
data on official as well as unofficial cases;
3. The public should be educated to report child abuse and neglect;
4. Public education should feature emotional maltreatment, although they
should
not forget about the other three forms of child abuse and neglect;
5. There should be therapy for the victims in order to meet their
psychological,
emotional and social needs and not just treatment for their physical
injuries;
6. There should be treatment for perpetrators of child abuse and neglect;
7. Prevention programmes should target "high risk" parents and provide
parent
education and support;
8. Professionals should be trained in the proper management of cases of
child
abuse & neglect and multi-disciplinary "child protection" teams should
be set
up;
9. A law to make reporting mandatory could be considered."

They KNOW, in other words that they have a serious problem with child
abuse, but that they have NOT done much about it in Singapore.

http://www.corpun.com/sgd00005.htm
The is story is interesting as it supports a number of claims
non-spanking advocates have made in this ng.

One I point to, that is obvious, is that caning was NOT working. Even
being hit that hard did not stop the girls from being noisy.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?s...8126 6738B252

One of the most violent places on the planet, barring war, is South
Africa. You ARE aware they use CP on children there, are you not?

Why did it work in Singapore and not in SA, Doan?

How about Sweden?

They have been set back by an immigrant population with considerable
problem with follow laws. And in particular this one.

In fact they still have problems with female genital mutilation in
Sweden in the immigrant population.

Laws don't stop behaviors entirely Doan. Or we wouldn't still have bank
robberies. 0:-

Sweden is still a leader in the fight against child abuse.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Sy...3?Opendocument
....55. Mrs. KARP asked what was being done to encourage parents to avail
themselves of counselling services, with regard to corporal punishment
in particular, in a country which had a vast immigrant population with
many cultural differences. What practical assistance for rehabilitation
was offered to victims of sexual assault, including incest? On the
subject of association, while she understood that children could belong
to any number of associations, she wondered whether there were any
restrictions on the actual formation of associations by children....

Would you say, Doan, that if a country passes a law against bank robbery
and suddenly bank robberies are being reported more, that the increase
was caused by the law?

Would you say if a law against bank robbery did not reduce bank
robberies considerably, because more banks were being built, should be
repealed because "it didn't work," would be a good idea?

Sweden has a huge immigrant population from countries that sanction
child abuse and call it discipline.

Could it be CP is not the critical element?

Neither are the non-cp alternatives?

You seem unable to answer a question.

That it's actually NOT needed to raise children, or run a country well?

Tell that to the Singaporean. ;-)

I think I will. You should have read further before that comment was
made, or after reading further come back and removed it.

http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/3904/articles/3904a3.html
In fact, in Singapore society "caning" children is considered
non-abusive. Do YOU personally think hitting a child with the typical
cane they use (usually a piece of Rattan...so you know what that is?) is
not abusive?

They cane adults too! ;-)

And you think this is what makes Singapore a law abiding country?

This is what THEIR kind of government has brought them too. Creating
what appears on the surface to be an orderly and healthy society, while
rot such as this is going on under cover.

http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/6.2.htm
... While most literature in this area concentrates either on the rights
guaranteed by the Convention or issues raised by studying child abuse
across cultures, this Comment incorporates elements of both approaches
into its analysis. Examination of the child abuse statutes and relevant
policies of Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and Indonesia reveals that
child maltreatment is particularly influenced by cultural relativism.
This analysis further indicates that cultural attitudes, a government's
regulatory strength within the familial context, and economic prosperity
all contribute to obscure the fine line between child abuse and child
discipline. Consequently, a full realization of the benefits guaranteed
by Article 19 in these four countries may not be achieved until children
are understood as rights bearers within the family as well as in
society. ...

It's not because the Hutterites spank, stupid. It's because this is an
ultimate socialist controlled society.

And all is not all flowers and sunlight in said community, monkeyboy:

http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html

Hahaha! Anotheer of your "formidable research skill", Kane?
No comment on the content, then? R R R R R R R

I don't need too because it's funny that you took a 180 degree turn on
the
Hutterites. ;-0

I did so because I am honest and continued my research and found I was
mistaken, based on incorrect information I read. I corrected that in
this newsgroup, by reporting the new information I had found.

More than you have ever done, Doan.

Not much to recommend the Bruderhof monkeyboy, except they spank. 0:-

Yet again proof that spanking is a form of abuse and is part and parcel
of a sick society.

Only to the mind of the sick people like you, who think that your
mother would approve of you calling other a "smelly-****"! ;-)
I don't have to "think" it, dummy. She told me so. She was alive at the
time I made the remark. She looked at the quotes from Fern supporting
the beating of children by church members and was more offended than I.

Hihihi!

Yes, I expected you to not have an intelligible response, monkeyboy.

We are open and honest with our feelings in our family. Unlike you.

Open and honest? That's a laugh!

You wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass. 0:-

And what would be sick about being against the self delusion that
spanking is not hitting, and that spanking is not simply assault under
color of law?

It's part of "non-violent" parenting were you your claim! ;-)

Brilliant, if only I had an interpreter.

It's just fact.

To stupid people like you! ;-)

Nope. I've seen thousands and thousands of examples of what non-violent
parenting and teaching methods can do. And it does not make violent
children, nor does it make mental illness, nor drug dependency.

Not like corporal punishment appears to do.

AF

You are in dreamland, alright.

0:-

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

**0:->**

http://www.nospank.net/durrant.htm

The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment:
Its History and Effects
Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D.

From Family Violence Against Children: A Challenge for Society, Walter
de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, New York, 1996. (pp.19-25)

1 Introduction1

For 5 years, from 1979-1984, Sweden was unique in the
industrialized world for having passed the first explicit ban on
corporal punishment. To many of us, particularly those of us living in
North America, this appears to have been a radical and, to some,
intrusive legal development. However, from the Swedish perspective, the
law was the logical conclusion of an evolutionary process that unfolded
over a period of decades.

The present chapter will provide an outline of this development
followed by an evaluation of the effects of the law. First it is
important to note that Swedish society as a whole has undergone an
evolution over the past century that has produced an increasingly
collective and egalitarian social context in which such legal changes
have taken place. Promotion of children's physical and mental health has
become a cornerstone of family policy, as reflected in Sweden's
well-developed child care system, parental leave and sickness insurance
provisions, and health care system. Moreover, the Swedish state has
increasingly moved into what has traditionally been considered to be the
private sphere with the support of the majority of its citizens.

2 History of the Swedish Law

2.1 Early Attempts to Reduce Corporal Punishment, 1920s - 1940s

One hundred years ago, corporal punishment was common in Sweden and
many children experienced severe beatings (Sverne, 1992). But by 1928,
there was sufficient concern about this situation that the Education Act
was amended to forbid corporal punishment in the gymnasiums (secondary
schools). Sweden was one of the first countries to implement such a
measure. Its significance is made clear when one notes that corporal
punishment is still legally sanctioned in Canadian schools more than
half a century later.

The success of this early measure, together with continuing concern
about the level of violence permitted toward children in the home, led
to a change in the Parenthood and Guardianship Code (a civil code
governing family law) in 1949. In an attempt to reduce severe beatings,
the word "punish" was replaced by "reprimand" in the section defining
permissible parental behavior. The legal defense for corporal punishment
remained in place, however, in both the Parents' Code and the Penal Code.

2.2 Increasingly Explicit Legislative Changes, 1950s and 1960s

The inadequacy of changing the wording of the corporal punishment
defense became apparent throughout the 1950s. Parental violence was
continuing to occur, and it was believed that maintaining the defense in
the legal codes was contributing to this problem by providing an
explicit sanctioning of corporal punishment. In 1957, the section
permitting parents to use force in reprimanding their children was
completely removed from the Penal Code. The intent of this change was to
provide children with the same protection from assault that adults
receive and to clarify the grounds for criminal prosecution of parents
who abused their children. Parents' rights to use corporal punishment
had still not been eliminated completely, however, as the Parents' Code
still contained a paragraph permitting this practice. This situation
allowed parents to use mild forms of physical discipline that would not
constitute assault: under the Penal Code. The inconsistency of these two
sets of laws was eliminated in 1966, when the parental right to use
corporal punishment was removed from the Parents' Code.

At the same time that laws permitting corporal punishment in the
home were being repealed, so were those allowing this form of discipline
to take place in other child care settings. In 1959, an "experiment" was
carried out in the welfare schools; the teachers were asked to refrain
from using corporal punishment for 1 year, after which they could
evaluate the success of this approach. While there was some initial
resistance to this idea and some debate in the media, during the course
of that year, a change took place in the Headmasters' beliefs such that
they no longer felt that beating was necessary and the media debate
diminished considerably (Linde, 1978). As a result, 1960 witnessed the
abolition of corporal punishment in the Statutes for Child Care
Institutions and Reformatory Schools. It was expected that now parents
and other caregivers would cease to use physical force.

By this time, interest had been generated in assessing the effect
of these legislative changes on public support for corporal punishment.
One of the two largest public opinion polling organizations in Sweden
carried out a series of national surveys through the late 1960s and
early 1970s. Respondents were asked in each survey whether they thought
that corporal punishment was sometimes necessary. Between 1965 and 1968,
the percentage who thought that it was necessary declined from 53% to
42% (SIFO, 1981). By 1971, this percentage had declined even further to
35% (SIFO, 1981). Also, between 1965 and 1971, the proportion of Swedes
who believed that children should be brought up without the use of
corporal punishment increased from 35% to 60% (SIFO, 1981)

2.3 The 1970s and the Children's Rights Commission

It is evident that changes in public attitudes changed quite
substantially following modifications to the law regarding corporal
punishment. But these changes appear to reflect changes in social norms
on a broad basis more than simply an increased awareness of the legal
status of corporal punishment. The evidence for this notion comes from a
poll conducted in 1971, which demonstrated that 60% of the population
did not know that corporal punishment was no longer legally defensible.
As a result, a public education campaign was launched in an effort to
increase awareness of the fact that physical force was no longer legally
sanctioned.

Soon thereafter, in 1975, a 3-year-old girl was badly beaten by her
father and was taken to hospital with bruises over her entire body.
Despite the girl's injuries, the court acquitted her father, stating
that he had not exceeded his right to chastise his daughter (Sverne,
1984). This event demonstrated, as Peter Newell (1989) has argued, that
removal of the criminal defense does not ensure that children will be
treated equally to adults before the law. In 1977, soon after this
father was acquitted, a large exhibition on child abuse was held in
Stockholm and attended by 60,000 people (Linde, 1978). A large number of
those attending the exhibition signed a petition that called for more
stringent laws on the use of physical force against children (Linde,
1994). That same year, the Minister of Justice appointed a Commission on
Children's Rights to review the Parenthood and Guardianship Code and
formulate recommendations for modifying it to improve children's welfare.

The Commission concluded that, although the right of parents and
custodians to use corporal punishment had been removed from both the
Penal Code and the Parents' Code, it had not been replaced with clear
guidelines for parents' or legal authorities' decision-making.
Therefore, it was not clear whether corporal punishment was not approved
but permitted, or whether it was actually forbidden. The Commission was
unanimous in its support for a proposal to include a paragraph in the
Parents' Code that explicitly banned the use of corporal punishment by
parents. In 1978, this proposal underwent a "remiss procedure" during
which it was submitted to 30 authorities for review and response.
Twenty-eight of the 30 authorities supported the proposed ban. In 1979,
the proposal was put to a vote in Parliament. There was virtually no
opposition; the proposal was supported by all parties and the final vote
was 259 in favor and 6 against (Sverne, 1994). The relevant paragraph
now contained in the Parents' Code reads:

"Children are entitled to care, security, and a good
upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and
individuality and may not be subjected to physical punishment or other
injurious or humiliating treatment."

The goal of the ban was to alter public attitudes and acknowledge
children's rights as autonomous individuals, not to criminalize parents
(Sverne, 1994). As the legal amendment was made to the Parents' Code, it
carries no penalties. Punishment for infraction of the law remains
within the arena of the Penal Code and is administered only in cases
that meet the criteria of assault. The law was intended as a guideline
for parents to follow and as a means of changing attitudes toward the
use of force in childrearing.

The absence of sanctions for parental transgressions provides
increased opportunities for early intervention into troubled families.
Generally, parents are helped through support and education, rather than
through prosecution. The law ensures the right of refusal to prosecute
trivial acts even if they are punishable under the Penal Code, and the
definition of corporal punishment does not include physical force or
restraint used to prevent harm to the child or to others (Newell, 1989).
The law does, however, forbid not only corporal punishment but mentally
humiliating treatment as well - for example, ridiculing, frightening,
threatening, or locking up a child. Therefore, the concern that mental
abuse would increase in the face of decreased physical punishment was
addressed by the legislation.

2.4 Supportive Measures, 1979 to Present

As part of its proposal, the Commission strongly recommended that a
public education campaign accompany the passage of the new law. A
massive campaign was funded by the Department of Justice. The ban was
well-publicized by the media, but more importantly, a 16-page color
pamphlet explaining the reason for the law and providing alternatives to
corporal punishment was given to every household with a young child.
These pamphlets were also distributed through medical offices and child
care centres and translated into all immigrant languages. This was the
most expensive pamphlet distribution ever carried out by the Ministry of
Justice (Ziegert, 1983). Further, for 2 months, information about the
law was printed on milk cartons, to ensure that it was present at family
mealtimes when parents and children could discuss the issue together. As
a result of this campaign, by 1981, a total of 99% of Swedes were
familiar with the law, a level of knowledge unmatched "in any other
study on knowledge about law in any other industrialized society"
(Ziegert, 1983).

Today, education about the law continues. As the Commission's
report was the shortest printed official report in Sweden's history, it
is used in school to teach children how a law is created. The law is
also discussed in parent education classes, which are available to all
expectant parents, and in well-baby clinics (child health care centres),
which are used by virtually 100% of the population. The legislation also
appears in the 9th-grade lesson plan on Child Development. In compulsory
English-language classes, a vocabulary-building exercise is based upon a
conversation between an English couple who support corporal punishment
and a third person who opposes it (Newell, 1989). Such measures provide
information about the law directly to children and extend its preventive
function.

3 Effects of the Law

The effects of the law upon behavior are difficult to demonstrate,
as no large-scale longitudinal studies have been conducted. There is
evidence from two qualitative studies that although Swedish parents
tended to be rather permissive in the early 1980s, this has changed and
they now are generally quite skilled in using democratic childrearing
methods (Haeuser, 1988, 1990). Further, rates of child abuse appear to
have declined; the number of referrals to St. Göan's Hospital in
Stockholm, which receives all child maltreatment cases, had declined by
1989 to one-sixth of the 1970 rate (Haeuser, 1988). By the mid-1980s,
Swedish rates of physical discipline and child abuse were half those
found in the U.S. (Gelles & Edfeldt, 1986; Haeuser, 1988), and the
Swedish rate of child death due to abuse was less than one-third the
American rate (Gregersen & Vesterby, 1984).

As the primary purpose of the law was to alter public attitudes,
this is an important variable to examine, and longitudinal data are
available to permit such an analysis. It will be recalled that by 1971,
the proportion of Swedes who thought that corporal punishment was
sometimes necessary in childrearing had declined to 35%. By 1981, two
years after the law a passage, this proportion had decreased to
26%(SIFO, 1981). In 1994, a national survey was commissioned by the
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and carried out by Statistics
Sweden. This study revealed that only 11% of Swedes now support the use
of corporal punishment in childrearing (Lundgren, 1994). (For a more
detailed description of this study's findings, see Edfeldt & Durrant,
this volume.) Therefore, over the course of three decades, public
attitudes have undergone a major shift; whereas a majority of Swedes
believed in the necessity of corporal punishment in 1965, only a small
minority support its use today.

The purpose of the law was to make it clear to Swedish citizens
that hitting children is not permitted. It was also intended to educate
parents about the importance of giving their children good care. It
removed what could be construed as a silent sanction of corporal
punishment and is the culmination of an evolutionary process that saw
Swedish society increasingly reject corporal punishment as a means of
educating children and increasingly recognize the rights of children as
individuals. It was the educational component of the law that was seen
as most important, rather than the potential for legal penalties.

4 Conclusion

The Swedish corporal punishment law has been very effective in
shaping a social consensus regarding the rejection of corporal
punishment in childrearing. However, the law's implementation and the
attitude shift that accompanied it cannot be viewed in isolation from
the social context in which it developed. The social developments that
led up to its implementation include:

1. The growth of a strong children's rights movement,
represented by two prominent and influential organizations, Rädda Barnen
(Swedish Save the Children) and Barnens Rätt i Samhallet (Children's
Rights in Society). These organizations have contributed to a high
degree of public recognition of children's status as persons.
2. A collectivist orientation that places children's welfare at
the centre of social policy formulation. This orientation is manifested
in Sweden's highly developed and heavily subsidized day care system,
generous parental leaves, parental sickness insurance, children's dental
insurance, and a broad array of welfare measures that have reduced the
child poverty rate to less than 2% (Smeeding, 1992).
3. A focus on preparation for parenthood. For example, at all
levels of education, students are educated about responsible parenthood.
Baby-care courses include a parent training component, prenatal classes
are accessible to all expectant parents, and support groups for parents
of young children are available at community health centers. All such
services are provided free of charge.

Together with the nonpunitive nature of the corporal punishment
law, these measures increase the likelihood that parents who find
themselves relying on physical force to raise their children will seek
assistance and/or be identified early in the cycle that often leads to
abuse. This coherent preventive approach has resulted in broad public
support for the abolition of corporal punishment and commitment to the
eradication of child abuse.

Since Sweden passed its law, four other countries have done the
same--Finland (1984), Denmark (1986), Norway (1987), and Austria
(1989).* In 1985, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
recommended that member states review their legislation on corporal
punishment in order to limit or prohibit it, even if violation does not
necessarily entail a criminal penalty. The Swedish experience can be
very instructive in this regard, because it provides evidence for the
effectiveness of such measures in altering societal attitudes toward the
use of physical force in childrearing.

Note
1 Much of the information obtained in this chapter was obtained
during a research visit to Sweden supported by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Council. The author would like to thank Gunborg Anderson,
Gunilla Bodin, Åke Edfeld, Simone Ek, Anette Larsson, Gunnel Linde, Tor
Sverne, Karin Lundin, Peter Newell, Anika Oster, and Gun-Marie
Pettersson for their valuable contributions.

Editor's Note
* Cyprus and Italy have now also banned physical punishment of
children.

References
Burns, N. (1992): Legislative and attitudinal comparison of western
counties on corporal punishment. Paper presented at the Meeting of the
International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Chicago.

Gelles, R. J. & Edfeldt, A. W. (1986): Violence toward children in
the United States and Sweden. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1O, 501-510

Gregersen, M & Vesterby, A. (1984): Child abuse and neglect in
Denmark: Medico-legal aspects. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8, 83-91.

Haeuser, A. A. (1988): Reducing violence towards U.S. children:
Transferring positive innovations from Sweden. Unpublished manuscript.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Haeuser, A. A. (1990): Banning parental use of physical punishment:
Success in Sweden. Paper presented at the Eighth International Congress
on Child Abuse and Neglect, Hamburg.

Linde, G. (1978): Corporal punishment. Paper presented to the
Second International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, London.

Linde, G. (1994): Personal communication. Stockholm.

Lundgren, L. (1994). Allmänhetens Inställning till Olika Former av
Barnuppfostran [Public attitudes toward different forms of
childrearing]. Stockholm.

Newell, P. (1989): Children are people too: The case against
physical punishment. London.

Smeeding, T.M. (1992): Why the US antipoverty system doesn't work
very well. Challenge, 35, 30-35.

Sverne, T. (1984): Untitled unpublished manuscript.

Sverne, T. (1992): The Swedish ban on physical punishment. Paper
presented at the Seminar on Ending Physical Punishment of European
Children, London.

Sverne, T. (1994): Personal communication. February 4, Stockholm.

SIFO [Swedish Opinion Research Institute] (1981). Aga och
Barnmisshandel [Spanking and child abuse]. Unpublished report.

Ziegert, K. A. (1983): The Swedish prohibition of corporal
punishment: A preliminary report. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
45, 917-926.

[[[[[[[[[ Why Sweden is not spanking free today ]]]]]]]]]]]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

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

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

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
adoption/surrogacy situation, bf after hysterectomy?	dkhedmo	Breastfeeding	5	May 21st 06 03:14 AM
Need Comments on Situation	WiseSarah	Child Support	0	July 4th 04 01:33 PM
Christian History Corner: To Spank or Not to Spank?	billy f	Spanking	0	June 28th 04 07:54 AM
\| And again he barks........ Kane barks ...... again! was Kids should work...	Kane	General	9	December 9th 03 06:08 AM
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work...	Kane	General	2	December 6th 03 03:28 AM