Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

krp wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
...

(snip)

Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
spanking.
(snip)

Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
yourself look like an idiot.

I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..

Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.


Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that spanking
CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
are children who self discipline."

He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
answering ME as though I was Ron.

Then you posted:
" If you notice Kane and Ron have a credibility problem, including
things
like claiming you said things you didn't. It seems to be de rigueur in
their
argument style. "

Ron came back telling you he doesn't debate this issue.

Then you attack him again for clarifying he's not interested in the
issue...and your inclusion of him is pointless.

Hello!?

Are you awake in there?

Stop dodging. We have enough of this with Doan. I simply don't debate
dodgers any longer.

Stay on the topic, talk to ME and with ME, and no others until you have
decided we are at an end in the discussion. Drawing Ron or Doan, or
anyone else I see simply as a diversion by the opponent.

(And getting Ron involved when he simply pointed out that you weren't
providing evidence is rather stupid. When Ron debated me previously on
this he DID provided evidence, as did I...not dodging, no lying, no
bull****, and openly agreeing we had differing opinions on the subject)

If you cannot meet simple rules of debate (one to one is usually the
rule) then forget it.

Thanks. Kane

0:- wrote:

Don - we know you have serious issues. Please get help.

In the meantime, your hysterical OT spanking rants are not welcome here.

Don't you have some kiddies you can abuse for an extra buck.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Firemonkey" wrote in message
ps.com...

Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
what?

Sure. Hard enough to hurt. Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
physical injury. For? Doing bad things to others.

Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?

I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...


Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.

I see you cannot address the "debate" with scientific evidence to
support YOUR endorsement of spanking causing children to be aggressive,
instead you make the debate about ME! Noted. You lose again!

And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you and
I.

Nope I have NOT. LIAR!

I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.

That's YOUR problem not mine. So far you aren't debating me but you're
whining like a child and changing the subject.

Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with mine
on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.

I didn't pick anyone Kane.

I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
aps, and each other in the debate.

Fine show me scientific evidence to support your position. YOU WON'T!
YOU CAN'T! SO you make this about me. What debating skills.

You have shown me that you refuse.

No it is YOU who is refusing.

Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.

Let's start with one point of agreement. A "survey" is NOT a "study" and
typically is NOT "scientific." Certainly NOT proof of causality.

It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
point with this comment, your first, in the thread:

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "

There isn't! You have repeatedly been challenged to present some, to this
point you have REFUSED to do so!

You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
article was bogus.

The claim IS bogus from a scientific standpoint. Uf you want to debate
that, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!

Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.

No you have chosen so far to be a blowhard. Present your evidence ort
admit defeat!

You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.

I went straight at it. Present your PROOF!!! Burden is on YOU.

You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
"acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.

I don't subscribe to that forum. Why must I confine it there? What's
scientifically acceptable? A "study" (not a survey) conducted by a qualified
authority that uses the scientific mthod to demonstrate causality. NOT an
opinion piece by another blowhard you agree with. SCIENCE documented as to
methodology and verified and subjected to peer review published in a
recognized journal.

You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.

Yeah I did, you snipped it and ignore it.

This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
authoritative sources.

YOU made the dogmatic claim that spanking "CAUSES AGRESSION IN CHILDREN"
Yopu have not offered anything by an OPINION piece bereft opf har evidence.

If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
above.

You claim the article is definative. I said it isn't ans asked for PROOF
from you that it is CAUSAL. SO far - 100% of your efforts have been attacks
on ME and NADA as to evidence to support the original bull**** claim.

Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
posters.

You first and I will maintain ASCPS. Afraid? Need to summon your
supporters? Want a firendly forum?

Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.

YOU FIRST!

And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "

I have started, BUT - YOU made the original claimm and REFUSE to present
supporting evidence. Again OPINION SURVEYS are NOT "science!"
PERIOD!

Gelles et al are not the only researchers.

Just the most respected.

As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go beyond
opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack of
spanking producing sociopathology in children.

YOU FIRST!

Can you handle it? Can you control yourself? Let's see.

Physician heal thyself first.

I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.


Tell you what Kane. Post it ONLY do your spanking newsgroup so I won't
have to see your whining bull****. Then you can declare yourself to be the
WINNER in your little circle, opr debate me OPENLY and start presenting
FACTS and not your usual bull****.

The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those simple
criteria, including posting only to aps.


No - weenie - YOU do NOT get to make all the rules Mein Fuehrer! Debate
me openly or STFU! And start presenting scientific evidence to support your
claim. You do NOT get to throw a hissy-fit and demand that I disprove your
silly bull**** first. Get one thing through your head Kane you are NOT the
BOSS here, NOT with me you ain't. Save that bull**** for people you CAN
bully into giving up their kids to you! You don't come remotely close to
scaring me pr making me back down. Now if you really want to debate -
PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE and then I will respond to it.

krp wrote:
"Firemonkey" wrote in message
ps.com...

Can the pro-spankers define spanking? how hard, where on body, and for
what?

Sure. Hard enough to hurt.

How do you know it's not hard enough to injure?

Moderate enough not to cause any lasting
physical injury.

How do you know it's not hard enough to injure?

If you hit an adult you'd be charged with assault and battery, would you
not?

For? Doing bad things to others.

What bad things?


Have you tried non-violent ways to disipline?

I have. Most of them, like "Time Out" are just SILLY as hell.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems resemble nails.

What other methods have you tried besides "Time Out?"

Any that are not punishment based? Which ones?

I can't find any response to my challenge to your claim that there is no
research based on scientifically acceptable evidence, and that there is
ample evidence to show that failure to spank produces pathology in
children.

Did I lose the thread somewhere, or are you unwilling to define terms,
and apply them equally to my your argument as you wish to to mine?

You appear to be responding to anyone but me. Can I presume you do not
wish to defend your claim any longer?

Kane

PS I've dropped ascps from the addy's....to remain in a group that is on
topic and out of one that is not. 0:-]

"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

(snip)

Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
spanking.
(snip)

Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
yourself look like an idiot.

I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..

Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.


Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
are children who self discipline."

He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
answering ME as though I was Ron.

Look Kane both you and Ron have to learn that YOU do not dictate the
terms of a debate. Get over yourselves. I know you are used to bullying
people into submitting to you and your AUTHORITY, it don't work on me. You
want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE. Present our evidence or shut the
hell up and quit whining like a baby!

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...


Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

Well, I can see that my attempt to open a debate with you, based on
your claims (I made none related to your reply) is not going to go
anywhere. You still can't seem to stop lying.

I see you cannot address the "debate" with scientific evidence to
support YOUR endorsement of spanking causing children to be aggressive,
instead you make the debate about ME! Noted. You lose again!

But I did. I posted the article on the international research. Then YOU
came back saying it was questionable, by posting your comment that there
was no acceptable scientific evidence to support the claim that spanking
causes problems.

I challenged you on YOUR comment...and I await your cessation of dodging
and demanding I prove something I didn't claim.

No, I'm not making the debate about you, Ken. I asked that all
personality and personal issues be dropped and the debate be based on
facts and evidence, and definition of terms.

You have failed to respond to my request for a clarification of terms
that we can both agree on. That's all.

I'll be happy to respond to YOUR presentation of evidence to support
YOUR claims. For you see, I did, you challenged, I challenged your
challenge.

It's your turn.

And you have attempted to draw others into this exchange between you and
I.

Nope I have NOT. LIAR!

Yes you have.

You brought up Ron's name, addressing him directly by name when he had
not posted to this thread.

You have since also opened a conversation with Firemonkey rather than
respond to my challenge.


Your claim that I am a liar is a lie, Ken.

You may converse with who you wish, of course.

I offered, in this thread, to debate you, and only you. You chose to
speak to others, then you are drawing them into the debate.

The proof is in your posts, and your unwillingness to debate on
reasonable grounds of definition of YOUR terminology.

Feel free to demand the same of me.


I said I'd debate YOU, and no one else.

That's YOUR problem not mine.

It becomes your responsibility when you refuse the terms of my challenge.

So far you aren't debating me but you're
whining like a child and changing the subject.

I am not debating you because you aren't debating me. You have not
defined your own terms. You have not produced a single piece of evidence
to support your two claims:

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children," and "There is considerable evidence that a lack
of spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

First, define you terms.

Next provide evidence that meets your own definitions.

I will then, of course, respond in kind if you wish.

Oddly enough you pick the person who holds opinions that differ with mine
on the subject of corporal punishment who I respect in these
forums, and try to force him to my side on this issue.

I didn't pick anyone Kane.

Yes you did. Ron had not contributed to this thread up to the point you
addressed me as though I was Ron.

He responded with only that he was not involved in this debate. You came
back at him with a reply that ignored his statement requiring him to
prove proof of something he had not claimed. Ron would not claim to
support anti spanking agendas.

You insisted he was doing so and was thus required to provide proof for
"his claims," which of course never existed.

He simply asked YOU to provide, as I had done, proof of YOUR claims.

You addressed him ... and he had not posted ... in your comments about
your daugther and raising her. That's when he told you he was not
interested in debate but you might provide something beyond anecdotal
evidence.

I think he was even a bit impolite R R R R R...as you seem to be
working to earn.

I asked you to debate me, and with specific simple easily met
conditions. Clarification of terms, mostly. And to confine ourselves to
aps, and each other in the debate.

Fine show me scientific evidence to support your position. YOU WON'T!
YOU CAN'T! SO you make this about me. What debating skills.

No, the fact is you can't and that's why you, instead of taking your
turn, insist I carry the load I already assumed when I posted the
article on the international study that did indeed show some
correlations, by survey, of children having bad outcomes from being
spanked even in countries where spanking was accepted, but all across
every country...or most...regardless of the level of acceptance of
spanking.

You see, when you then come back with your declaration that, "There is
NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes aggression in
Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can
produce sociopathy in children," and I challenge your claim, it becomes
YOUR turn, not mine.

What would be the next logical item in the list below, krp?

Kane, krp, Kane.

Yes, you got it right. It IS your turn. And I'm not taking mine until
you define your terms, and provide evidence to support YOUR claims.

It's not my turn to answer with argument and evidence as yet.

I took my "turn" opening the thread.

You have shown me that you refuse.

No it is YOU who is refusing.

R R R ..no, Ken. That is a lie.

I told you what I'd respond to. If you aren't willing too produce, then
I'm not under any obligation to respond.

I refuse to respond to anything but what I said I would.

Let's start at the beginning. I posted a quote from an article on an
international study, a survey of families in a number of countries,
across the spectrum of CP acceptability or rejection.

Let's start with one point of agreement. A "survey" is NOT a "study" and
typically is NOT "scientific." Certainly NOT proof of causality.

No proof of causality was claimed by me.

And yes, survey methods are in fact scientific.

And yes, they are a study of an issue.

You are obviously shuffling away from my request.

Provide a definition of YOUR terms for YOUR claim.

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

What is acceptable evidence. And where is YOUR evidence for that second
sentence claim above, that will meet YOUR definition of "acceptable
evidence?"

It was met with comments by Doan and LaVonne, and you dropped in at one
point with this comment, your first, in the thread:

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "

There isn't!

I do not agree. But you have not accepted the responsibility of defining
your terms.

I cannot debate an opinion, Ken, and unless you define "acceptable" in
the context you use it, it's your context is opinion.

You have repeatedly been challenged to present some, to this
point you have REFUSED to do so!

Of course. I am not going to present "evidence" that is "acceptable" to
you, until I know what "acceptable" means in your terms.

Once I know that, and you include with it, since it's still your turn,
YOUR evidence that lack of spanking produces pathology in children, I
have nothing to debate.

Only that you have failed to meet the terms of our debate I require to
debate at all.

You made this statement in reply to Doan's claim that the title of the
article was bogus.

The claim IS bogus from a scientific standpoint. Uf you want to debate
that, SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE!

I posted the article. It is my evidence. You challneged it as you did,
and I then invited you to provide your proof.

Mine was evidence from an authoritation source. Read it. Look at how did
it, et al, and show either were they are wrong, or you have confounding
evidence from equally authoritative sources.

So far, I have opinion from you, and the most clumsy of dodging I've
witnessed in these ng for some time. You are almost as witless as Greg,
it seems.

Now if you two wish to sign each other's dance card, be my guest, but
I, Kane, offerred to take you up on your claim.

No you have chosen so far to be a blowhard. Present your evidence ort
admit defeat!

No.

It's still your turn. My evidence is the article I posted, and any
material related to it. Go and read it and any related material you wish
to find regarding it, and get back to me.

Bring with you that definition I asked for, and some proof of your claim
about children becoming pathological for lack of spanking and we can
move to the next level. Until then, sir, you are projecting the
"blowhard" claim, obviously.

You have chosen, so far to go everywhere but to my challenge.

I went straight at it. Present your PROOF!!! Burden is on YOU.

You answered my request for a definition for "scientifically acceptable
evidence?" I must have missed it. Can you point me to your post where
you did indeed honor my request?

My proof consists of the article in question. An international study of
a number of countries that found that indeed, regardless of the level of
acceptance for the us of CP in that county there were negative outcomes
from the use of "spanking."

You have NOT, as I requested, clarified what you would consider
"acceptable," in "scientifically acceptable evidence," and you have not
stuck to aps as the forum to have our debate in.

I don't subscribe to that forum.

Subscribe. It's not hard. You seem to find your way into others without
a problem. Lack of motivation here?

Why must I confine it there?

You aren't required to. It was a request. I will not debate it anywhere
but here because it is not on topic elsewhere. You'll see I've removed
the ascps addy for this reply.

What's
scientifically acceptable? A "study" (not a survey) conducted by a qualified
authority that uses the scientific mthod to demonstrate causality. NOT an
opinion piece by another blowhard you agree with. SCIENCE documented as to
methodology and verified and subjected to peer review published in a
recognized journal.

Let me see now, except for your ad hom, I find this a reasonable
definition, but I doubt you can manage to find a single study that
supports your claim of pathology in children caused by lack of spanking,
that will meet your definition of scientifically acceptable.

I do not in fact demand that of you. I would be perfectly happy for you
to show a study or studies or research that meet and or exceed the one I
listed for the opening post to this thread.

And it was accepted for peer review. That's why we are reading it.

Social science does not conduct much in the way of 'causality' based
research for the simple reason that to do so would most often require
methods that would violate research ethics standards. Take sample
destruction as an example

Certain former research that was very productive to the field of social
science is now outlawed. The infamous "Guards and Prisoners" experiment
could not be duplicated now.

And we cannot take a random sample from the population, and make a
random assignment of spanking and not spanking using children....not
even adults for that matter, not even if they volunteered.

So demands to produce what cannot be produced, as you have just done,
are suspect as dishonest, unless you were unaware of this issue in
social science research.

The fact is we run this world on "what we think," based on observations,
and the power of correlations from research. If we relied solely on
"causation" we would either be frozen in time, or this would be utter
chaos.

You have not presented your evidence for proof of sociopathy in
children being produced by a lack of "spanking," as you put it. And you
most certainly made a statement that this is true because more
sociopathogy is present now than in the past in the population.

Yeah I did,

I've missed your scientifically acceptable evidence, Ken. Where is it
please.

you snipped it and ignore it.

I've snipped not a single bit of any post to this thread, Ken. You are
mistaken, or lying to dodge that you have failed to respond with the
simple guidelines for this debate.

Your own definition, now in existence in this post I reply to, shows ou
failed to meet your own criteria.

And I don't even demand that level of proof. I'd be happy with peer
reviewed CORRELATION study or studies and research.

This was presented as fiat but NO proof, no data, no facts, no
authoritative sources.

YOU made the dogmatic claim that spanking "CAUSES AGRESSION IN CHILDREN"
Yopu have not offered anything by an OPINION piece bereft opf har evidence.

You seem to be losing it.

I did indeed offer peer reviewed research. It's in the first post to
this thread. My post.

What part of it do you challenge, based on your own criteria of
"acceptable scientific evidence?"

I concede it does not meet standards for "causality." Do you know of any
study on either side of the debate that do?

I'd be interested in seeing them. Or you can change your criteria, to
peer reviewed research with clear correlation.

Be my guest.

If you wish to have a war of opinions you can certainly do so. But, Ken
it was NOT I who made a claim about this issue, I simply posted an
article and YOU then made personal claims regarding and quoted by me as
above.

You claim the article is definative.

I didn't use that word. I accept that all social science research in
these times, in civilized countries, are limited exclusively to that
which will NOT produce 'causality' related outcomes.

Ever read the Embry study? Get it from Doan if you are interested. Embry
has a few interesting observations about the use of other than spanking,
and some comments on what spanking can produce in some children.

I said it isn't ans asked for PROOF
from you that it is CAUSAL.

And I asked you provide, since you challenged with a claim that failure
to spank produces pathology in children, to provide at LEAST the same
level of research of the article, and I'm not holding you to the higher
demand of 'causality,' because of two things. One can do that kind of
research on humans, and especially children, and two, it doesn't exist.

SO far - 100% of your efforts have been attacks
on ME and NADA as to evidence to support the original bull**** claim.

Nope. YOU have failed first to define, then provide.

The original claim stands. YOU attacked it with YOUR claim. I asked you
to support your claim.

The report stands as provided.

YOU have only given opinion since.

Debate here in aps without crossposting. Debate with ME alone. Agree to
and adhere to no ad hom. Remove all personal issues about me or other
posters.

You first and I will maintain ASCPS.

Nope. Here alone or nowhere.

I predicted you'd take this dodge, and here you are jumping through my
hoop, like a good little trained weasel. 0:-

Afraid?

Not in the least.

Need to summon your
supporters?

I've just asked that no one else participate to avoid either of us
having to deal with the other's "supporters," Ken. In other words, I am
requiring for both of us a level playing field.

Want a firendly forum?

aps a "firendly"[sic] "forum?" You have got to be kidding. You already
courted and were invited to dance with Doan.

If we did this in ascps you can be sure I'd have more friendly readers
there than here.

Sadly, there aren't too many people still buying the "spank'm 'til the
hurt," gospel any more....but that's not my fault. It's there's for
being unable to support their agenda.

Define your terms. I will not debate with opinion.

YOU FIRST!

I did. Mine is to accept YOURS when you have done so.

I cannot meet the "causality" requirement precisely because it is not in
the research. If you know of causality based research outcomes for YOUR
claims, do feel free to post them as I've requested.

However, as I said, I'm willing to accept good solid peer reviewed
correlational studies to support your claim that children who are not
spanked result in pathology in those children.

And then use YOUR definitions of your terms to make your argument.

"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. "

I have started,

Hmmmm...well, yes, you "started," but you didn't complete the request.
You made two claims. One that the scientific evidence was lacking. The
other that children will become pathological if they aren't spanked.

BUT - YOU made the original claimm and REFUSE to present
supporting evidence. Again OPINION SURVEYS are NOT "science!"
PERIOD!

I could be asked to continue to support the evidence I presented (the
study in the first post, Ken) until the cows come home.

It's a turnabout game here, Ken, and anywhere people discourse civilly.

I took my turn...first post, you took yours, with your challenge I keep
quoting, I took my turn asking for clarification and support for your
claim.

Mine was evidence, yours has not been so.

The article is the evidence. You have not refuted it, rebutted it, or
successfully challenged it with counter evidence at the same or greater
level of authoritative evidence.


Gelles et al are not the only researchers.

Just the most respected.

Hmmm...maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "respect."

As I said, define what you mean by 'acceptable,' in terms that go beyond
opinion, and show your evidence....beyond opinion, that would
meet your definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence," for lack of
spanking producing sociopathology in children.

YOU FIRST!

I am to define YOUR terms?

How does this work, Ken? Do you always dodge when asked to explain YOUR
terms and commentary?

And you have in this post my reply...that I will accept any evidence you
provide that is based on peer reviewed correlation based research
(because that is all there is or can be) and will be happy to debate
your claims based on that evidence.


Can you handle it? Can you control yourself? Let's see.

Physician heal thyself first.

My last physical showed me to be in better shape than most people 30
years my junior, junior.

And you have engaged here in ad hom, a request of mine you have ignored,
I presume based on your desire to NOT debate this, since I said it was a
criteria for debate, and you have engaged in dodging the request for you
to take your turn, as I took mine already.

But then, there you go, eh?

You have one more claim on the table that you have refused to answer,
Ken. The one about pathology in children based on a lack of spanking.

Do you wish to pursue it, or not?

Where is the evidence?

I produced a study. Now YOU produce yours.

We'll go from there.


I will cross post this out to ascps soley that you might not miss it.


Tell you what Kane. Post it ONLY do your spanking newsgroup so I won't
have to see your whining bull****.

In other words, you are bailing.

Thought so.

Then you can declare yourself to be the
WINNER in your little circle,

Nope. There is no "winner," on the subject of your challenge to me, or
my counter challenge.

The only thing that has happened is that you have demonstrated your
unwillingness to admit to an error, and your determination to dodge.

opr debate me OPENLY and start presenting
FACTS and not your usual bull****.

I have. I posted the article on the international study that made
certain claims based on the outcomes of their research into spanking
customs in many countries.

You ask me to provide 'evidence.' No, THEY DID. Deal with that.

You came back with a claim of your own, SANS ANY STUDY, no evidence, one
claiming there is a lack of evidence that is acceptable...but you have
not pointed to what in that study was lacking.

Then you went off on another study...which I had not mentioned, to
"prove" the former study is wrong? Weird, but Ken all over.

The exchange between us on topic won't begin until you meet those simple
criteria, including posting only to aps.

No - weenie - YOU do NOT get to make all the rules Mein Fuehrer! Debate
me openly or STFU!

I get to make them for myself. My rule is that I will respond as stated.
If you don't define the terms (this is now cleared up for me, how about
you?) and you don't provide evidence for your claim of children being
made pathological by lack of spanking, then we have nothing to debate.

Why would I argue against your opinion, rather than evidence you can
provide? You can provide it, right?

0:-]

And start presenting scientific evidence to support your
claim.

The first thing I offered in this thread, the first post in fact, was
just that. The results of a study. Evidence.

You do NOT get to throw a hissy-fit

Funny, it's you that is obviously losing it and hissy fitting, Ken.

I am asking for simple rules of debate, to level the playing field, so
neither of us has any advantage, but THE TRUTH, based on facts as they
can best be defined.

No hissy, no fit.

and demand that I disprove your
silly bull**** first.

Yep. Mine is the study. You have given nothing in response but to bring
up another study and attack it. Strawman fallacy invocations, Ken. It
won't fly.

And I don't really demand you do anything. I simply state I won't do
certain things unless you play on a level field. Nothing more.

We are still defining some terms and boundaries here, Ken.

I will not respond to your failure to accept the boundaries I require,
Ken. That's all. No hissy, no fit.

If you cross post anything where you are addressing me I will not
respond. No hissy, no fit.

Just a level playing field in a proper forum to the subject.

Get one thing through your head Kane you are NOT the
BOSS here, NOT with me you ain't.

I'm not your boss. You don't have to accept my request for a level
playing field. You can even debate that with me if you wish. But you
will be more obviously dodging than before, even.

As you are doing now. Anyone can see my requests are not oppressive, but
simply to remove all the background static such discussions generate.

And a request to base our debate on facts.

Save that bull**** for people you CAN
bully into giving up their kids to you!

I don't have anyone's kids but my own. Another attempt to dodge, Ken?

I've never been a CPS caseworker. My work with CPS was as a student.
They are hardly allowed to make casework decisions of any kind. I did
have a tiny bit of influence back then though. I got a pack of workers
planning to entrap a mother, and risk the lives of her children in the
bargain, to NOT do that, and to act quickly to get the children out of
danger. She was alledged, and as it turned out the allegation was true,
to be drugging her children ..three of them.. to control them so she
could party without interruption. You may fill in the blanks there.

Otherwise my involvement with CPS was always helping kin to adopt or
foster, but definately to get custody, of their relatives abused and
neglected children, and ace the state out of said children.

You don't come remotely close to
scaring me pr making me back down.

Scaring?

Back down from what?

Now if you really want to debate -
PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE and then I will respond to it.

I did. Your response was


"There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

I challenge that, and am waiting for you to respond with evidence equal
to or surpassing mine (the article, remember) that proves or supports
your claims.

And I'm not even requesting, as you did, "causal" studies, but
correlation studies. Peer reviewed, as you requested of me, and I had
provided.

So, when are you going to meet me in aps, stop the ad hom and dodging,
produce your evidence for you claim, as I presented mine?

Pathology from not spanking....snicker RR R R R .. sure Ken.

Do you wish to be taken seriously? As honest?

As intelligent?

As a trial and jury consultant?

I hope no potential clients miss this little debate and your behavior.

One study, peer reviewed, Ken, that says children become pathological
from failure to spank them.

0:-]

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:VZadnTfKcrfscDrYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@scnresearch. com...

First, the study is a correlation study. No CAUSATION can be
implied.
Thus, the claim that spanking "Leads" to child aggression and anxiety
is bogus! Second, the authors themselves admitted that they included
beatings that are certainly abusive in the USA in study. If you
really
want to debate this study, I am willing to give it a shot - no verbal
abuse warranted. ;-) Wanna give me a try? My guess is you will be
the one that do the avoidance and instead will use your little Kane9
to do the verbal abuse and attack for you.
There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children.

Do you know that Kane is a "never-spanked" boy?

Did you notice, Ken, that Doan didn't agree with you? Didn't contribute
anything to the issue?

Should I fly off the handle at him?

I can't think why. He supports you.

Call him names?

That's entirely up to you who you call names. Seems you've chosen me.

Belittle him?

You don't belittle people?

Find
somebody that says bad things about him and proclaim that I agree 100% with
what his detractors claim about him? No Kane - I AM NOT YOU!

Where did I agree 100% with your detractors?

I agree with them when I look at your postings, not with their claims.

I take their claims with a grain of salt. I've said so.

My status or yours as having been spanked or not is not relevant to the
issue if we are going to discuss facts....and FACTS seem to be what you
claim you have.

A lack of discipline as a child can and usually does explain abusive
behavior in adults.

A lack of personally integrated self control, by way of developing a
conscience, usually does explain abusive behavior in adults.

Now which is it for you, Ken?

krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

(snip)
Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
spanking.
(snip)
Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
yourself look like an idiot.
I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..
Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.

Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

Ken, you did not invite Ron to debate you. You PRESUMED he said
something when in fact you were responding to ME. You said, "Ron there
are children who self discipline."

He responded by telling you simply he wasn't part of the debate...he
had NOT posted previously to the thread, and you were mistaken in
answering ME as though I was Ron.

Look Kane both you and Ron have to learn that YOU do not dictate the
terms of a debate.

I don't dictate the terms for others. I dictate what I will or won't
participate in. Nothing more.

You do as you wish, I'll do as I wish.

Get over yourselves.

What's to get over? I simply require a level playing field. I expect
truth to prevail.

I notice no study or other evidence, outside of opinion from you, on the
subject of "There is considerable evidence that a lack of spanking can
produce sociopathy in children."

Why is that I wonder?

I know you are used to bullying
people into submitting to you and your AUTHORITY, it don't work on me.

I don't have any special authority, nor have I ever had. I've less than
you most likely.

And I haven't asked you to submit to anything. I've simply outlined
those criteria under which I will debate, or I won't debate.

You going to miss the opportunity then to prove that "a lack of spanking
can produce sociopathy in children?"

You
want to debate, or Ron does, then DEBATE.

Ron made it plain to you, and I've reiterated, that you invited him to a
party he doesn't attend. You brought up his name, I think addressing me
mistakenly. He responded.

He does see that you are a blow hard and are not producing evidence.

Even though he and I have some clearly defined differences between us on
the issues of CP, he knows you are in way over your head.

Present our evidence or shut the
hell up and quit whining like a baby!

Okay. Here it is:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Source: Society for Research in Child Development

The study grew out of existing controversies over whether parents
should spank their children or use other forms of physical discipline.
While some experts argue that physical discipline should never be used
because of evidence that it is related to more, rather than fewer,
child behavior problems and might escalate into physical abuse, others
argue that the effects of physical discipline might depend on
characteristics of children and families and the circumstances in which
physical discipline is used.

To find out if the latter theory was valid, researchers from Duke
University in North Carolina, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Göteborg University in Sweden, the University of Naples, the
University of Rome and the Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie in
Italy, Chiang Mai University in Thailand, the University of Delhi in
India, the University of Oregon and California State University-Long
Beach questioned 336 mothers and their children in China, India, Italy,
Kenya, the Philippines, and Thailand about cultural norms surrounding
the use of physical discipline and how it affects children's aggression
and anxiety.

They first asked mothers how often they physically disciplined their
children, and then asked mothers and children how often they thought
other parents in their country physically disciplined their children.
Finally, they asked mothers and children how often the child worries,
is fearful, gets in fights, bullies others and other questions to
measure children's aggression and anxiety.

The researchers found differences in how often mothers used physical
discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other parents used
physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety.

"One implication of our findings is the need for caution in making
recommendations about parenting practices across different cultural
groups," said lead researcher Jennifer Lansford, Ph.D., a research
scientist at the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University.
"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents
use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for
example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

However, she notes, some practices that were condoned historically
(e.g., child labor) are now condemned, at least in certain countries.
"A larger question is whether a parenting practice is acceptable,
regardless of whether it occurs commonly within a cultural group."

###

Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 76, Issue 6, Physical
Discipline and Children's Adjustment: Cultural Normativeness as a
Moderator by Lansford JE. Dodge KA Malone PS and Quinn N. (Duke
University), Chang L (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Oburu P and
Palmérus K (Göteborg University), Bacchini D (University of Naples),
Pastorelli C and Bombi AS (Rome University), Zelli A (Istituto
Universitario di Scienze Motorie), Tapanya S(Chiang Mai University),
Chaudhary N (University of Delhi), Deater-Deckard K (University of
Oregon), and Manke B (California State University, Long Beach).
Copyright 2005 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Society
for Research in Child Development.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm
....

Notice it's peer reviewed, as you claimed my evidence must be?

Your reply to this was, by way of addressing Doan's comments on this
study, and your first contribution to the thread:

.... There is NO scientifically acceptable evidence that spanking causes
aggression in Children. There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children. ...

I challenged you to define your terms and provide evidence equal to or
greater than the article above, my evidence of the claim that spanking
causes aggression in children.

I await your evidence counter to that. Gelles research is not counter to
that claim. Disproving Gelles to disprove this more current research
would be considered a dodge. Gelles could not have addressed this in his
research since chronologically his came before.

You must, if you wish to make a credible argument, produce later
research that refutes MY evidence as posted above.

Or studies by opposing peers that disprove some or all of the article
and study claims.

As to the second issue: I await your evidence, meeting your own criteria
as to peer review, but excusing you from what you tried on me....a
requirement for what cannot ethically have occurred, causal research on
human subjects...that "There is considerable evidence that a lack of
spanking can produce sociopathy in children."

Do you have some?

Will you stop dodging and present it here?

Will you admit it does not exist?

It's all up to you.

I'm making no demands of you that I do not place upon myself.

I gave my evidence.

Where is yours to refute it, and where is yours to support your
pathology in children claim?

I'd just love to move this on to how spanking does produce pathology in
children...but we are stuck with your dodging, are we not?

0:-]

" krp" wrote in message
news:cP7qh.199$hi7.49@trnddc08...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

(snip)

Ron there are children who self discipline. They never need a
spanking.
(snip)

Kenny, I'm not involved in this discussion, and rarely comment on CP
issues. Do some research dopy, get the facts before you again make
yourself look like an idiot.

I see you deliberately SNIPPED all references to the claims of Dr.
Gelles and the refutations from Dr. Steinmetz and Dr. Spock..

Yes, they were not relevant to my post. Only your own stupidity.


Yeah they are but feel FREE to show us your "SCIENTIFIC PROOF" that
spanking CAUSES aggression in children.
So you can "DEBATE" me.

I don't have any such proof ken, and have never claimed it. The only thing
I have proven is that you are a liar, again. But you should be getting that
point by now, everyone else is.

Ron