No-spanks as verbal abusers

When pinned down, even radical feminists admit there is a problem with
verbal abuse. For one thing, it is much more difficult to assess than
is physical abuse. For another, laws do not define verbal abuse.
There can be no enforcement, only awareness of its insidious existence.

As with physical abuse, the intent of verbal abuse is to maintain
absolute control of another person. Verbal abuse is calculated to keep
the victim on edge and uncertain. It destroys self-confidence.

No-spanks are often verbally abusive. Typical no-spanks:

* seldom reveal their own ideas, inner thoughts, or deep feelings.


* dispute other people's ideas, disparage their thoughts, and
belittle their feelings.

* never have a problem; it's always everyone else who has a
problem.

* trivialize any opposing opinion other than their own.

* engage in name-calling that frequently labels any opposition as
threatening them.

* deny any wrongdoing.

* blame others for their actions, e.g., if parents didn't spank
they there wouldn't be a problem.

* discount the accomplishments of others.

* accuse spanking parents of either being guilty of physical abuse
or sexual perversion.

* threaten to take away children if they are spanked and threaten
to put the parents in jail; the law is a cudgel.

No-spanks are usually very angry and vicious individuals who have a
similar psychological profile as rapists. Any superficial charm is
deceptive. They can never be seen as vulnerable and must always be in
control of the situation.

Because no-spanks often have minimal interpersonal skills they
frequently hide behind the pendant claims of credentialed individuals
as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority.

Opinions wrote:
When pinned down, even radical feminists admit there is a problem with
verbal abuse.

Really? You've had a conversation or read about one with a radical
feminist where she, or he, made that claim and admission? Why did they
have to be pinned down? I've noticed they are very gabby and sharing.

For one thing, it is much more difficult to assess than
is physical abuse. For another, laws do not define verbal abuse.

You are wrong.

There can be no enforcement, only awareness of its insidious existence.

There can be enforcement. The enforcement against verbal abuse are
covered by mental and psychological abuse to children statutes.

http://tinyurl.com/bbjm4

I wonder if it ever occurs to you, in all the times I and other have
corrected you and shown you that you were wrong, that you have a
problem? I think you do. And I speculate nearly every time I read your
posts that it relates back to your childhood spankings.

You seem extraordinarily ignorant of child abuse laws and issues:

Child Abuse: Types, Signs, Symptoms, Causes and Help
Emotional abuse can range from a simple verbal insult to an extreme
form of ... Parent Child Abduction is Child Abuse is a psychological
article that ...
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/chil...al_neglect.htm
- 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Domestic Violence and Abuse: Types, Signs, Symptoms, Causes, and
....
Mental, psychological, or emotional abuse can be verbal or
nonverbal. ... Enforcement of most state and federal stalking laws
requires that the victim be ...

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/dome..._effects .htm
- 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Abuse: Physical, Emotional, Sexual, Neglect
.... sexual abuse) the age specified by the child protection law of the
state in which ... EMOTIONAL ABUSE (psychological abuse, verbal abuse,
mental injury) ...
www.focusas.com/Abuse.html - 123k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Child abuse and neglect are defined by both Federal and State law. ...
Abused child means a child who has suffered emotional or psychological
abuse ...
nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/general/legal/statutes/defineall.pdf - Similar
pages

abused men
Psychological, Physical Abuse Equally Harmful To Health; Childhood
Sexual ... Snippets on Child Abuse & Neglect. In 1877, New York State
passed a law to ...
www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/abuse.html - 37k - Cached - Similar
pages

Child Abuse in Children
Child abuse can be physical, emotional - verbal, sexual or through
neglect. ... In most states, reporting suspected abuse is required by
law. ...
http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welco...ild_abuse.html - 45k -
Cached - Similar pages

Information on...Elder Abuse
But fewer than half the state laws provide civil or criminal penalties
for elder ... Emotional/psychological abuse includes but is not limited
to verbal ...
www.uwcnm.org/information/elderabuse.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Tim Field explores abuse including child abuse, physical and ...
.... of child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, emotional abuse and
verbal abuse. ... All abuse is violent, be it physical, emotional,
psychological, ...
www.bullyonline.org/related/abuse.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

Child Maltreatment - All Forms of Child Abuse and Neglect
2 Each state provides its own definition of child abuse and neglect.3
Child ... Emotional / Psychological Abuse. The habitual verbal
harassment of a child ...
naccchildlaw.org/childrenlaw/childmaltreatment.html - 35k - Cached -
Similar pages

This has been my experience with you from way back when you were
"observer," observer.

You make wild claims that are false, and you turn you back when
challenged. This is very like what you have accused the president of,
you do realize that, do you not?

As with physical abuse, the intent of verbal abuse is to maintain
absolute control of another person. Verbal abuse is calculated to keep
the victim on edge and uncertain. It destroys self-confidence.

Yes, that's the name of the game. Why do you do it so much here?

No-spanks are often verbally abusive. Typical no-spanks:

Excuse me. You just used that vile expression "no spanks" and claimed,
abusively, that we are verbally abusive.

In post after post you open paragraph after paragraph with verbal abuse
by name calling.

Have you anything to day for yourself?

* seldom reveal their own ideas, inner thoughts, or deep feelings.

On the contrary. That is pure projection on your part. You NEVER open
up and own anything about yourself.

* dispute other people's ideas, disparage their thoughts, and
belittle their feelings.

You are describing lil 'o' in all his posts about those that advocate
against the use of CP.

* never have a problem; it's always everyone else who has a
problem.

Not true. We shared out own challenges in this ng. You did ONCE. Then
ran when you were invited by Chris, and you screaming all the while
about being attacked, when you were not, to share your story and look
at possibilities that might help you use nonCP methods more
effectively.

* trivialize any opposing opinion other than their own.

You describing what you are doing right now.

* engage in name-calling that frequently labels any opposition as
threatening them.

Well, let's just look at a few recent posts of yours. I'll spare you
the embarassment of looking at those you posted as "observer," lil 'o'

"unwelcome fringe element "

"no-spanks are very angry people
with lot of unresolved baggage from childhood"

"Would you like to burn those books?"

"perpetuating a
self-serving agenda."

"LaVonne must have had a miserable childhood. She comes off as an
extremely
rigid person spouting the party line of the educational ... "

"It is a confusion that still exists today and is
exploited by no-spanks. "

"That's the idiot.
The more educated the first and second no-spanks are, the more likely
both are educated beyond their intelligence."

"Like a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum on a toy store
floor, they try to make up for their lack of real power by making a lot
of noise to get what they want."

"Their entire agenda depends on their
dictatorial powers. The problem is that, despite all their
pretensions, they have neither the brains nor the bite to be the head.
"

"If no-spanks were mechanics, they'd spin a 1/2-13 nut on a 1/4-20 bolt
and pronounce the mating a perfect fit. "

"When it comes to
children, no-spanks are often about as helpful as a pushy French waiter
in a fast-food restaurant. "

"Much like semi-literate backwoods snake-handing preachers, they
mindlessly recite the same incantations over and over again."
And my favorite most recent one, "observer,":

" Given the tone of Kane's post, he would be safe to bet that he or she
had foamy slobber all over their keyboard by the time they finished.
As usual, Kane had nothing to say except that he or she has hang-up
with "Observer".

So who's namecalling, lil 'o'?

* deny any wrongdoing.

Gee, and not two hours ago I posted a mea culpa for being so hard on
you back when you disclosed your failure with your attempt to use a non
CP parenting method.

Is lying something you find you are unable to stop doing?


* blame others for their actions, e.g., if parents didn't spank
they there wouldn't be a problem.

Your logic is absolutly astounding. In fact, you sound more like one of
us. Of course. We'd go away if parents didn't spank. Stands to reason.

* discount the accomplishments of others.

What accomplishements have we discounted, there old 'o'?

* accuse spanking parents of either being guilty of physical abuse
or sexual perversion.

Not all. Just some. And like slavery, that was immoral and illegal on
the face of it before laws were passed, this two will qualify.

* threaten to take away children if they are spanked and threaten
to put the parents in jail; the law is a cudgel.

Yep. That is the purpose of the law, in all matters where laws are
written. It is to compell behavior of the citizen, or suffer the
consequences.

No-spanks are usually very angry and vicious individuals who have a
similar psychological profile as rapists.

I would have sworn you just claimed we were name calling YOU. Tsk, lil
'o', tsk.

Any superficial charm is
deceptive. They can never be seen as vulnerable and must always be in
control of the situation.

Sorry, it just comes with being right so much of the time.

Because no-spanks often have minimal interpersonal skills they
frequently hide behind the pendant claims of credentialed individuals
as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority.

I get the distinct impression you are against both authority, and
intelligence.

Oh well. So it goes with the adult who was spanked too much as a child.


0:-

On 4 Jan 2006 18:28:30 -0800, "Opinions"
wrote:

No-spanks are often verbally abusive.

This you say as you proceed to verbally assault an entire class of
individuals about whom you know very little? The verbally abusive is
calling others verbally abusive. Odd behavior.

No-spanks are usually very angry and vicious individuals who have a
similar psychological profile as rapists.

What a horrendous and vile thing to say! Who is really angry here?
Sounds to me like a very angry, vicious individual saying angry,
viscious things about other people because it is all he/she is capable
of doing.


Because no-spanks often have minimal interpersonal skills they
frequently hide behind the pendant claims of credentialed individuals
as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority.

Was this post an example of YOUR interpersonal skills and your ability
to present a point of view in a rational, intelligent, defensible
manner? I do imagine it is the best you could do.

And your post speaks for itself and volumes about the kind of person
you are.

Halliwell wrote:
On 4 Jan 2006 18:28:30 -0800, "Opinions"
wrote:

No-spanks are often verbally abusive.

This you say as you proceed to verbally assault an entire class of
individuals about whom you know very little? The verbally abusive is
calling others verbally abusive. Odd behavior.

No-spanks are usually very angry and vicious individuals who have a
similar psychological profile as rapists.

What a horrendous and vile thing to say! Who is really angry here?
Sounds to me like a very angry, vicious individual saying angry,
viscious things about other people because it is all he/she is capable
of doing.


Because no-spanks often have minimal interpersonal skills they
frequently hide behind the pendant claims of credentialed individuals
as a way of maintaining a sense of superiority.

Was this post an example of YOUR interpersonal skills and your ability
to present a point of view in a rational, intelligent, defensible
manner? I do imagine it is the best you could do.

And your post speaks for itself and volumes about the kind of person
you are.

I made the decision when I first started reading and posting here to
give tit for tat.

This kind of abusive language, disguised as "reasonable debate," I met
with the crudest language I could muster. Rather than wake them up,
they simply accused me of being abusive. Cute eh?

Nothing, no amount of reason, no rubbing their noses in it, no pointing
to the most blatant of abuses they do, has the least chance of reaching
them.

You can check this poster's much longer history by looking for the
poster name "observer," and you'll see his style is exactly the same
with one exception. On rare occasions he would actually respond to a
challenge with some attempt to sort out facts. When challenged on the
accuracy of his facts, or their logic he would revert, rather than
answer, to this same pure attacking style.

It's impossible to have a debate with those that do that because in
fact they are one trick ponies.

Any commentary is an invitation to provide a bit of information which
will them be divorced from the whole issue, and especially from the
whole body of knowledge shared on this ng over time. You wind up
thinking a new person posts each of their posts because they entirely
ignore the historical rebutals they have suffered...apparently simply
for the sake of playing at "debate, " and screw the facts.

Very strange, but very common on Usenet everywhere. Total wastes of
time. No real debate.

Total refusal to admit error.

Don't you just love it?

Kane