If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is "non-violent" What has hapenned to this group?
Ignoranus Kane0 said:
"The confusion may start here. I like confusion. It sifts the bull**** artists that do NOT do adequate research, before they start accusing other of it. R R R R" LOL! Doan On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Doan wrote: LOL! Kane said: "They aren't the only society that has thrived without battering children and calling it their equivalent of "spanking."" Doan On 15 Jan 2006, 0;- wrote: Doan wrote: Kane: "It's the non-violent gentle nature of their parenting with a fine tuned application of developmentally approriate teaching." Doan: So spanking is now part of a "non-violent gentle nature"??? Kane: "It was in this instance. It has been in research provided by you in the past." Don't you just love the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-) Doan On 15 Jan 2006, 0;- wrote: goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good an idea afterall. goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good an idea afterall. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
What has hapenned to this group?
beccafromlalaland wrote: Kane Wrote: Common to those such as the Holocaust Deniers, Creationists, Intelligent Designers, etc. They have an empty claim with no way to defend it factually so they attack bits and pieces of the opponents position, rather than the whole of it. Same ol' same ol. Kane I'm not going to pick a fight over this...but just for future reference, If you are not going to "pick a fight" why do you go on to put forward your argument? it's a bit offensive to lump Holocaust Deniers, Creationists, and those who believe in Intelligent Design together. Most of us find it "a bit offensive" to have our beliefs challenged. I draw your attention to the fact I did not lump them together. Whatever differences there are between them I certainly would not deny. They are not even making the claims totally. What I was pointing out was simply that they use the same argument methods. I believe the Story of Creation as told in Genesis, I need no other proof than what I know in my heart. Then that will be the standard you use for that issue. I'm not willing to allow a similar standard to be used for the issue of spanking. Since we aren't having a debate about creation and Genesis your beliefs are not in question. Many of those that claim spanking works just "believe" it works based on what they feel in their heart, ignoring other information. If you wish to extend to those that wish to use and defend the use of CP that same working model of reality you have for Creation then that is up to you. I do not. I don't try to disprove science as I don't understand much anyway. Science isn't about proof and disproof. It's about a constant condition of learning and aquiring new information. Science never has actually "proven" anything they do not anticipate yet more information that moves their knowledge forward. (Or occasionally back..smile) I just hold to the belief that there is a lot we don't know about the world yet, questions still aren't answered, so no one can say right or wrong how the world came to be or how old it is etc etc. The question here isn't evolution vs creationism. And science most certainly does NOT claim that their is or will be any final answer to those questions. It's up to each camp to provide proofs of their claims. And when one challenges the other, for the challenged to answer the questions, rather than simply challenge back. The same rules must apply, as far as I'm concerned, to the question of the use of corporal punishment issues. The spanking enthusiasts have never answered, other than to say "yet but," the fundamental questions of the risks, the negative outcomes that are percieved being worth the supposed and unproven benefits they "just know in their hearts" are true. I also Know the Holocaust really happened. I've met a survivor, touched his tatoo, seen the pictures and film. My Grandparents walked through Dachow. It happened. The Denier/Revisionist camp would argue into the ground on those points. They claim Dachau was a holding camp and not an extermination center. I believe they are correct. But other concentration camps were in fact extremination centers based on hard evidence from both medical and chemical forensics and the massive clear papertrail the germans left in their wake. The tattoo alone is not proof anyone was exterminated, only that they were tattooed for identification purposes. Of course their argument fails massively when one points out there are roughly six million missing jews from that period. A mass of people that great would have produced, if they were still living, millions upon millions of 'reunions.' It did not. Analysis of the photographic evidence stands up against the claim they were faked. Those were in fact dead bodies by the thousands per photo session. And the pics of german soldiers, guards, shooting prisoners on fields packed with piled up bodies were not faked. -- beccafromlalaland But we come back to the question of spanking. If it works, as is the claim, no reputable duplicatible research has ever produced that. The only answer the opposition provides is a challenge to prove non-spanking works. And of course they are as aware as I am that the demand to provide it is not ethically possible because we cannot set up an arbitrary "spanking" schedule experiment. All information has to be gathered anecdotally. Polls and surveys are very much that. Polls most especially show nothing but that some people were interested in responding. And the responders had every reason to be a group selected by the poll question, which of course would make them have common cause to answer. Surveys have a similar problem. The nature of the question asked, including the order, tends to drive the outcome in a particular direction. For instance, if I set a person down, as part of a larger study, and have her answer questions and early in the list of those is "the spanking" question, "How did your parents discipline you?" I have pretty much given the game away. For you see the following questions have to be about the outcomes. So that question must not be asked until the very end or it influences the participant. They will hedge all other questions according to what they think they should answer to the spanking question. And it can be phrased to make spanking appear to be the preferred choice. No, the object of surveying on a spanking issue is this: "What outcomes can be correlated with spanking?" Hence all questions preceeding the spanking question must be quality of life questions. Income, education, mental health, health, relationships, happiness v unhappiness ratings, etc. Then the spanking question. But few such surveys exist I would suspect. I'd need access to a major university library shelves on this subject, or the money to pay for them to be downloaded. And then I don't know if I'd even find them. I might run a search online again sometime to see if I can either improve my abilities to search, or to see if something new has come up since last I tried. In the final analysis for me, and using your criteria of personal experience and belief let me offer this to you. I have had a very long career related in a number of ways to behavior study. Both animal and human. I was for the first years, nearly 20 of them, of my working life, a professional horse trainer, teacher, and competitor. I studied successful methods vs unsuccessful for many of those years. And in the end every system I looked at that failed had a punishment component, and every system that worked ... winning a race, field competition over jumps and cross country, ease of handling....all had either fewer punishment components or non at all. You can guess which way I went. Early in that career I had two children. And became keenly interested in child rearing and by both recall and study I looked at parenting practices. I had the same criteria in mind. Who 'won' ultimately in quality of life? Sure some spanked individuals did, but that would be expected in a society where it's estimated over 90% of children are spanked. But was more startling to me and more than I expected, unspanked children and especially those treated respectfully and not humiliated in any way were far ahead of the pack. A joy to be with, easily self controlled. Cooperative yet independent. Assertive rather than aggressive. Guess which parenting methods I was drawn to. Later, after my children were grown, being keenly aware that there was another end to this sectrum, where children were subjected to harsh parenting methods, including abuse and neglect, I went back to college and studied that. And later taught and worked in the field of mental health, juvenile mental health. And what I found there was absolutely consistent with my correlations drawn from earlier study and experience. The sickest, and often most dangerous children I worked with were subjected on the same scale to punishment. Even children that had not had the harshest of parenting, but just routine hard spankings, had serious problems. We can of course simply go the Darwinian route here, and say that those children too delicate of constitution were being culled out, and only those hardy enough to maintian were left in the general population. I can't buy that, of course. What is the answer? Mine is that I look at the entire body of knowledge, and even if both are anecdotal I then weigh it against the risks of a bad outcome for the child. My work familiarity with prison populations, juvenile and adult, tells me that that one is not going to find unspanked children in either setting. I found not a single case record, and I must have read thousands in my long career, where corporal punishment was not a factor. From mild too harsh, they all, mentally ill, and criminal, had CP in their history. I presume they all drank milk too, the favorite comeback of the spanking apologists, but then no even distant correlation has been considered for crime and milk drinking, though I did have one out of control child in my care that was allergic to dairy, and when we stopped him drinking milk his behavior turned angelic. Same with other allergies. No the point is corporal punishment has too many risks of too serious a nature. From crime and mental illness, and social maladjustment to physical injury and death. The arguments in favor of CP have never overcome this. Their claims of good outcomes do not stand up when the data is examined. And the more harsh the society is toward it's children the more savage and hostile the society. If you wish to argue from your "just knowing" there won't ever be a resolution. The laws that will be coming before much longer (and are in place in many countries, and school systems here, and the already existent child abuse laws) will be based on the knowledge we have that correlates crime, mental illness, child abuse, and injury with corporal punishment. And while the apologists will want to continue the debate it will be pointless. In a few years the sharp reduction in spanking will bear fruit. The same that come because spanking has lost favor in the US to an already remarkable degree. That's why spankers hide their behavior. We used to see people spank children publically without a thought. We no longer see that. It's a prophetic occurance. Kane |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is "non-violent" What has hapenned to this group?
Doan wrote: goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is "non-violent" What has hapenned to this group?
Ignoranus Kane0 said: "He was so busy cherry picking, all that he knows how to do in debate, that he didn't bother to investigate more widely. I have, for instance, in this case, not only read far more widely than he on this issue, but I've even posted an e-mail to the Hutterite community asking if they'd mind filling me in on their practices concerning child discipline." LOL! Doan On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote: Doan wrote: goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is "non-violent" What has hapenned to this group?
Doan wrote:....nothing....snip...... On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote: goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Spanking is "non-violent" What has hapenned to this group?
Don't you just love the success of his mother? Just look at how this "never-spanked" boy turned out - ignoranus Kane0! ;-) Doan On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote: Doan wrote:....nothing....snip...... On 16 Jan 2006, Kane wrote: goggle on this proven liars posting history to Usenet ... alt.parenting.spanking "Doan" "The Question" "Embry study" "Alina" and "Aline" (the latter the name he stole from a notable figure on the USC campus to create the "Alina" character to attempt to obtain the Embry study from me fraudulently after claiming he already had the study.) This man is a constant liar, and a false supporter of the right to spank. He is a child like self opinionated little attack dog with no more scruples than the worst child beater. Read him and believe his nonsense at your peril if you are seeking the facts. His only two debating tactics are, when he's cornered, is to attack rather than answer, use the "snapshot fallacy," taking a single point out of the large field of content on an issue, and try to force others to debate only to that point. When drug back to the larger issue, logic, and the whole body of facts, he snaps right back into the "snapshot fallacy" again an tries to attack at another isolated point. No honor. No ethics. And no "face." His parents would puke if they knew what he does here, even though they spanked him. And they'd likely ask themselves if given the outcome of having raised such an unethical liar if spanking were such a good idea after all. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
PREACHER OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST: DR. DOBSON NEEDS TO MAKE UP HISMIND
http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm
PREACHER OR BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST: DR. DOBSON NEEDS TO MAKE UP HIS MIND By Ralph S. Welsh, Ph.D., ABPP SOURCE: Connecticut Psychologist, Newsletter of the Connecticut Psychological Association, Winter, 2006, Vol. 59, Number 4, page 6. In my opinion, psychologist and presidential advisor, the Rev. Dr. James Dobson is a very dangerous man. I have been following his career for many years, from the time in the late 60s while I was teaching at Fairfield University and doing research on the relationship between physical discipline and delinquency. His odd little book, Dare to Discipline caught my eye, and I was astounded to later find that it eventually became a runaway best seller. Unfortunately, it launched his career as a darling of the far right. Although the book does seem to have a folksy, common sense approach to childrearing, its stealth message is far more disturbing. In short, going against all research then and now, Dobson advocates the “judicious” spanking of children. One is immediately struck with the vivid descriptions of the brutality of his own mother, in Dare to Discipline, who he doggedly insists “taught me right from wrong”—and I might add, in very short order. Unfortunately, that was not all it taught him. Extreme discipline produces anger, and Dr. Dobson is one angry man. Dobson is now seen as the primary spokesperson for the Christian right. Recently Bush prevailed upon him to speak out for the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. Clearly the man’ s currently one of the most influential persons in Washington. Dobson’s influence in regard to the administration’s decision to go to war may be far greater than anyone realizes. While Bush was wavering on the war, Dobson counseled him to pray and “look for a sign from God.” Apparently Bush followed his advice. According to news reports Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas, “God told me to strike al Qaida and I struck them, and He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” I suspect God failed to realize what a mess this would get us into. Dobson has characterized gay marriage as “a looming catastrophe of epic proportions.” He has described late trimester abortion as a procedure where “the brains are sucked from a baby’s head” and insists that all abortions are murder. He has called the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants a leftist effort to promote homosexuality, and the concept of “diversity” as a liberal catchword which is really a disguise for encouraging the acceptance of gay unions. Closer to home, Dobson’s organization the Family Research Council, at the urging of radio host Dr. Laura, spearheaded a vicious attack on the APA for publishing what his organization considered an endorsement of pedophilia. These attacks exacted a protracted emotional toll on the administration of the APA. This extreme reaction was in response to a scholarly article published in the Psychological Bulletin that acknowledged many victims of pedophilia are minimally damaged. In April of 1999, Rep. Tom DeLay denounced the APA on the floor of the House of Representatives, claiming that our association and all of its members were supporters of pedophilia. Nearly all of the March, 2002 issue of the American Psychologist is devoted to this historic volcanic upheaval to our association. In spite of the utter absurdity of the theory of Intelligent Design, Dobson is one of the primary advocates of teaching this anti-science, faith based nonsense in the classroom. If he is successful (the president thinks it is a good idea), America could well become the laughingstock of the world’s scientific community. The ability to attract the best and brightest to a scientific career could be compromised. I wonder how many innocent Christian children will be physically mistreated today, because of his sanctioning of physical discipline? My own research suggests that many of these “spanked” children will grow up to be bullies, delinquents and criminals. If, indeed, Dobson contributed to the war when he encouraging the president to take unilateral action against what he termed an “axis of evil,” he will have to take some measure of responsibility for all of those young Americans, and innocent Iraqis who have died in this senseless war. As the readers of this newsletter know, I was against the war before it began, and am sorry that my predictions of it being a disaster came to pass. In admonishing other nations to join his war, Bush cautioned, “He that is not with me is against me (Mathew 12:3); this is vintage Dobson. James Dobson does not believe in global warming; his Family Research Council is a darling of big business. It’s a good thing his Focus on the family is quartered in Colorado. The rising oceans, burning of the rainforests, and increased ferocity of hurricanes will probably affect him less there than if he was in Florida. Feeling emboldened by his White House connections, Dobson has keyed specific Democrats for his wrath if they try to hold up presidential appointments Dobson considers vital to his cause, and has even threatened the political life of Bill Frist for taking a less extreme stance on the stem cell issue. How many people will die because of the life saving research that has been scotched because of the stem cell partial ban? I find it odd that my fellow psychologists have been so quiet about this man’s growing power and influence in the inner circles of Washington. He needs to be exposed for the charlatan he is, and I am ashamed to call him a colleague-- someone so visible in our profession who has strayed so far away from his scientific roots. On his website one can read these words by Dobson: “Science can be a wonderful instrument of good as long as it respects the bounds of moral principal?” This one brief statement exemplifies his total lack of understanding of what science is all about. Faith based science is an oxymoron. Psychology is a science based on empiricism and careful theory building. When a psychologist operates outside of the parameters of fact gathering, non-sectarian, objective, slogging science, he/she has lost his/her credibility with our collective scientific community. More importantly those who ignore objective reality in favor of “subjective faith” run the risk of reality jumping out and biting them—including all of the innocent people who that non- reality has affected. http://www.nospank.net/welsh11.htm More from this author at: http://www.nospank.net/welsh.htm#welsh11 -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
The Thriving Nations that use CP?
http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm
ROD INSPIRED WISDOM By Adah Maurer, Ph.D., 1993 "The rod and reproof bring wisdom." (Proverbs 29: 15) Now King Solomon, we are told, had seven hundred wives and thus must have had a goodly number of children. Presumably he practiced what he preached and all were raised by the rod. How did his own children turn out? Did they honor their father and grow in wisdom? Perhaps the story of Solomon's sons carries the real message of what happens to families when children are beaten with rods. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. At the coronation, the people petitioned for a redress of grievances. Led by Jeroboam, once Solomon's chief executive officer but later an exile in Egypt, they came before the new king and said, "Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us and we will serve you."(II Chronicles 10:4) Rehoboam was unsure of how to answer. He told them to come back in three days and sought counsel, first from the elder statesmen among his father Solomon's wisemen. They advised that he agree to lighten the load. Their counsel was: "If you will be kind to these people and please them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be loyal subjects." But Rehoboam rejected the advice from the elder statesmen and turned instead to the young men who had grown up with him -- the horde of half brothers who were also Solomon's sons. From them he heard the ultimate insult to the memory of their father. They said to tell the people: "My little finger is thicker than my father's loins." (II Chronicles 10:10). What Solomon's son said of their father remains in the private and vulgar language of junior high age boys to this day. To say that a man has a thin, small organ is to say that he lacks what it takes to be a man, that he is a wimp with no real guts at all. To growing boys, this is the ultimate insult. Solomon's sons advised their elder brother to tell the people -- as some might express it today, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" They told him to say: "My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions."(I Kings 12:14) What were scorpions? It sounds like they may have been whips with multiple strips with stingers at the tips, perhaps something like a cat-o-nine-tails used to flog sailors in the days of sail. Whatever scorpions were, they were dreaded by the people. King Rehoboam followed the advice of the young men who had been raised with him under the rod of correction. The people who had come to him in good faith listened to his insulting threats and went home to their tents. But they were so angry that the next time the King and his foreman in charge of forced labor came to conscript laborers, they stoned the foreman to death and Rehoboam himself barely escaped in his chariot back to town. (II Chronicles 10:18) Ten of the tribes, led by Jeroboam revolted. Many years of devastating civil war followed. "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life" (I Kings 15:6). Rehoboam forsook the Lord and turned to idol worship. Jerusalem was raided by the Egyptians who carried off much of Solomon's treasure. Rehoboam "did evil because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord" (II Chronicles 12:9,14). The civil war continued after Rehoboam's death and after Jeroboam's death. At length the divided and weakened Jewish kingdom, first Israel in the north, then Judah in the south, was overrun and conquered." http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
The Thriving Nations that use CP?
The Hutterites did. ;-) Ignoranus Kane0 said: "It's the non-violent gentle nature of their parenting with a fine tuned application of developmentally approriate teaching." Doan said: So spanking is now part of a "non-violent gentle nature"??? Ignoranus Kane0 replied: "It was in this instance. It has been in research provided by you in the past." Doan On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pohaku Kane wrote: http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm ROD INSPIRED WISDOM By Adah Maurer, Ph.D., 1993 "The rod and reproof bring wisdom." (Proverbs 29: 15) Now King Solomon, we are told, had seven hundred wives and thus must have had a goodly number of children. Presumably he practiced what he preached and all were raised by the rod. How did his own children turn out? Did they honor their father and grow in wisdom? Perhaps the story of Solomon's sons carries the real message of what happens to families when children are beaten with rods. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. At the coronation, the people petitioned for a redress of grievances. Led by Jeroboam, once Solomon's chief executive officer but later an exile in Egypt, they came before the new king and said, "Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us and we will serve you."(II Chronicles 10:4) Rehoboam was unsure of how to answer. He told them to come back in three days and sought counsel, first from the elder statesmen among his father Solomon's wisemen. They advised that he agree to lighten the load. Their counsel was: "If you will be kind to these people and please them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be loyal subjects." But Rehoboam rejected the advice from the elder statesmen and turned instead to the young men who had grown up with him -- the horde of half brothers who were also Solomon's sons. From them he heard the ultimate insult to the memory of their father. They said to tell the people: "My little finger is thicker than my father's loins." (II Chronicles 10:10). What Solomon's son said of their father remains in the private and vulgar language of junior high age boys to this day. To say that a man has a thin, small organ is to say that he lacks what it takes to be a man, that he is a wimp with no real guts at all. To growing boys, this is the ultimate insult. Solomon's sons advised their elder brother to tell the people -- as some might express it today, "You ain't seen nothing yet!" They told him to say: "My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions."(I Kings 12:14) What were scorpions? It sounds like they may have been whips with multiple strips with stingers at the tips, perhaps something like a cat-o-nine-tails used to flog sailors in the days of sail. Whatever scorpions were, they were dreaded by the people. King Rehoboam followed the advice of the young men who had been raised with him under the rod of correction. The people who had come to him in good faith listened to his insulting threats and went home to their tents. But they were so angry that the next time the King and his foreman in charge of forced labor came to conscript laborers, they stoned the foreman to death and Rehoboam himself barely escaped in his chariot back to town. (II Chronicles 10:18) Ten of the tribes, led by Jeroboam revolted. Many years of devastating civil war followed. "There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life" (I Kings 15:6). Rehoboam forsook the Lord and turned to idol worship. Jerusalem was raided by the Egyptians who carried off much of Solomon's treasure. Rehoboam "did evil because he prepared not his heart to seek the Lord" (II Chronicles 12:9,14). The civil war continued after Rehoboam's death and after Jeroboam's death. At length the divided and weakened Jewish kingdom, first Israel in the north, then Judah in the south, was overrun and conquered." http://www.nospank.net/maurer10.htm -- Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be, the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very alien he doth appear? Kane 2006 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
What has hapenned to this group?
We are always working on improving methods in all areas including parenting, you know. Hence the reason reasonable parents no longer use notted plow lines, boards, paddels, switches, or any of the other things that have a long history of use in this and other countries. We have made progress, improved methods, and understand that reasonable people make an effort to ensure that the child understands what it was that they did wrong and why it was wrong. Another of the tools we keep telling you about. One of many. No, the years when spanking has been used don't prove anything about its effectiveness. Well actually it does. Nature itself devised the best known method for behavior modification, and while you can "argue" against it you cannot do so credibly without something of at least similar background or having overwhelming evidence to support your claims. So far you have neither. Ron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Group B Strep FAQ | Cheryl Sandberg | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 19th 05 05:36 AM |
Group B Strep FAQ | Cheryl Sandberg | Pregnancy | 0 | June 30th 05 05:29 AM |
Group B Strep FAQ | Cheryl Sandberg | Pregnancy | 0 | December 29th 04 05:27 AM |
Group B Strep FAQ | Cheryl Sandberg | Pregnancy | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |
Yet another "ready for solids?" | Akuvikate | Breastfeeding | 30 | November 18th 03 02:15 AM |