Did you See this?

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

0:- Wrote:
So tell us Doan, if they'd been part of the study should Baumrind have
left this child's family in the studied sample or not?

There are apparently a lot of people calling the Pearl's methods
"spanking."

Ever read their dangerous twaddle? If so why haven't you commented on
their "spanking" advice?
Because he cannot defend people like the Pearls, or the Tripps, or
whoever else uses such bizzare, and dangerous methods of "discipline"

Now, why would I "defend" people like these? I am not a lawyer nor am
I being paid to be one. ;-) If you have read the article, you would
have noticed that the cause of death was suffocation:

"Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated."

Are you defending non-cp alternatives like this?
Are you defending the kind of CP they did use? You know perfectly well,
unless you are stupid, that the subject was "spanking," in LaVonne's
comment. Why would you change the subject?

Huh? LaVonne's comment? I was responding to beccafromlaland. Are you
this STUPID?

Sorry my mistake. Do mistakes make people stupid, or do you need to say
this to help you feel better about yourself?

And the question asked or the charge made for a change, Doan. Show that
your being spanked as a child didn't turn you into a droning liar.

Hahaha! You are showing your STUPIDITY again!

No, I'm looking at how you lie, and how badly you need to scream and go
through your hysterics. If it wasn't how you were raised, what was it?

Or is it?

Stop repeating your many years long bs on this ng and actually respond
in kind to what is presented. We do. You DON'T, habitually.

Stop being a STUPID anti-spanking zealotS!

No one here but you and the compulsives thinks I'm stupid. I will cop to
being an anti spanking zealot though. In the sense I'm zealous in my
pursuit of ending spanking. I think it a good thing.

Do you think ending spanking is a bad thing? I thought you wanted
everyone to make up their own mind?

Or is it actually true that you wish to side with those that decide to
spank, and against those, such as LaVonne, that decide not to?

Something has to be up with you and how you were raised. Apparently you
can't get over it, while others have been able to. Is there something
special your parents did to you?

No, unlike LaVonne, I wasn't beaten and muffled so that my cries can't
be heard.

So you were beaten and allowed to scream, eh?

Sad isn't it, yet she got over it, and refused, courageously, to not
follow the either the herd, nor succumb to the tendency to do to one's
children what was done to one's self.

I wasn't referring to LaVonne though. Any particular reason you wished
to bring her in as an example?

You should feel sorry for the way LaVonne were raised!

Goodness, you think I do not? Of course I do, and I admire her and
anyone that overcame that and moved on to the better choice: not to risk
one's child and their future by using spanking to parent.

And
unlike your mother, my parents never think that it is ok to call other
woman a "smelly-****" under any circumstances. ;-)

Yes. Mistaking form for function. Common among those that have small
repertoires in child rearing and use spanking instead of thinking.


My mother thought nothing of it except that I was telling the truth and
standing up to someone that advocated, as Fern did, the beating of
children ... stripping them naked, hanging them up in church, and having
the congregation beat them with objects...belts, coat hangers, etc.

My mother had reality sorted out, and did not mistake form for function.
She knew perfectly well the name calling ... especially of those that
deserved it, was not evil, but beating children in such a way WAS evil.

She'd never have defended the parents as that Smelly **** Fern did.

Are you defending Ferns defense of those parents, Doan? Are you, or do I
get another brush off?

You can't answer, can you.

0:- Wrote:
Should the mother have "made up her own mind," as you are fond of
claiming is your position on child discipline?

Was she a vicious killer or was she influenced, just like you like to
influence people than wash your hands of the possible results, after
all, you just "want them to make up their own mind," right?
It seems the mother did make up her own mind given the limited choices
she had. Everyone she knew, The mothers she hung out with used the
Pearls methods. She was not given any other information...thought she
had no other options...and chose not to research these awful people.

So do you want parents to make up their own mind or not? We already have
laws against child-abuse and in this case:
Why would you even ask such a question. Of one does not want parents to
make up their own mind when they are so badly informed they would resort
to walloping children with a piece of pvc pipe. Read up on the Pearls
and answer the actually issues being presented.

We are not discussing the death of the child, but the behavior of the
parent concerning the kinds of discipline used.

I see, the death of the child is of no concern to you!

Not discussing the death of the child is not being unconcerned, Doan.

I discuss many things in a day where at one point I discuss one part of
an issue, then later another. I can discuss the death if you wish.

You know that. You are just feeling how badly you are exposed for what
you are, and what your parents did you to, and how badly skewed you have
described their values.

I bet, if it came down to it, if THEY actually compared what Fern
defended they would be on my side, even if they didn't like what I
called her.

I'll bet THEY'D take stand, though you seem unable or unwilling to.

I'll be they are honorable. I wonder what they'd think of you and your
posting here.

That says loudy
about your agenda and you STUPIDITY!

That I chose to talk about part of a subject rather than all of it at once?

How is that stupid, and how is that showing my agenda would not include
the deaths of the children at another time, even minutes later?

Actually, Doan, I know a great deal about this case. Much more than was
revealed in the news.

I know for instance, that this child was adopted. And I know that the
parents were taught never to spank this child, as it was a previously
abused child. And no agency that places these children teaches
"spanking" or any form of CP as being acceptable.

NONE.

These children are one of those that I warn here about not knowing "The
Line," my infamous question of you, that you could not answer.

And really all children are like this in that parents, though they think
they know it all, do not. Sometimes we don't know a child has had a
trauma outside the home, or that possibly a hidden one is going on IN
the home. To spank a child that is acting out because of a trauma that
we may not know about (and we can't know everything, despite your
intimations otherwise) is the worst sort of cruelty.

Children need HELP growing up, not punishment for having challenges with
their growing-up needs.

You are ignorant, Doan. And you foist your ignorance off on others
instead of admitting to it. You play word and debating games to cover
your ignorance rather than admit to it. I can't imagine how your parents
could possibly support a position where they'd censure me for using foul
words on a foul person and NOT condemn what that person advocated.

Why did YOU not speak up when Fern was doing that.....just though those
parents should "make up their own mind," and society keep their noses out?

I think if you are going to talk like this:

"That says loudy about your agenda and you STUPIDITY!"[sic] you might
want to think about your own agenda and being stupid.

What do you think?

Isn't it time to grow up yet for you?

Kane



AFfromDreamLand

"Paddock, 45, faces a possible lifetime behind bars or execution if
convicted of causing Sean's death."

Doan

Yep Doan, that part of the story is obvious. This not
alt.parenting.infanticide

The only part of the story that is ON TOPIC for this ng is the Corporal
Punishment issue. Spanking and if blanket wrapping was being used as
"punishment to teach" (a failed concept in itself) then THAT is the
topic, and what was being discussed.

Your attempt to run off a side path is duly noted as one of your very
small repertoire of dodges in debate or argument. How about putting
yourself though a little self discipline and debating honestly, for a
change?

It would do you go, and pay honor to your loving parents. They didn't
know you'd turn out like you have and I know they did their very best.

They, in fact, made up their own mind, and look what it got them?

So too, the women in this story "made up her own mind."

Do you actually believe that all parents, by virtue of simply parenthood
should just "make up their own mind" and to hell with the consequences?

When parents fail to seek out safe parenting methods they abrogate that
right to "make up their own mind."

I'd rather not wait for a dead child, nor an injured child, and a parent
in jail.

And one of the ways of intervening is to influence parents to consider
other methods, to examine the possible risks thoroughly and THEN make up
their own mind.

Someone is lying to folks about the risks involved. Some by outright
commission of lies by giving faulty information...the Pearls as an
example, and some by pretending spanking has less risk than it does and
trying to influence parents against it has some deep evil misguided
motive behind it.

I think you fall in one of the two categories above.

Your posting here for years NEVER ONCE defending non-CP parenting
methods, and consistently attacking any posting that supported it.

In addition you have made a continual effort to harass anyone posting
non-CP parenting.

In other words, would your parents be proud of you?

0:-]


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




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

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

0:- Wrote:
So tell us Doan, if they'd been part of the study should Baumrind have
left this child's family in the studied sample or not?

There are apparently a lot of people calling the Pearl's methods
"spanking."

Ever read their dangerous twaddle? If so why haven't you commented on
their "spanking" advice?
Because he cannot defend people like the Pearls, or the Tripps, or
whoever else uses such bizzare, and dangerous methods of "discipline"

Now, why would I "defend" people like these? I am not a lawyer nor am
I being paid to be one. ;-) If you have read the article, you would
have noticed that the cause of death was suffocation:

"Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated."

Are you defending non-cp alternatives like this?
Are you defending the kind of CP they did use? You know perfectly well,
unless you are stupid, that the subject was "spanking," in LaVonne's
comment. Why would you change the subject?

Huh? LaVonne's comment? I was responding to beccafromlaland. Are you
this STUPID?

Sorry my mistake. Do mistakes make people stupid, or do you need to say
this to help you feel better about yourself?

No problem. People do make mistakes, including stupipd people like
yourself! ;-)

And the question asked or the charge made for a change, Doan. Show that
your being spanked as a child didn't turn you into a droning liar.

Hahaha! You are showing your STUPIDITY again!

No, I'm looking at how you lie, and how badly you need to scream and go
through your hysterics. If it wasn't how you were raised, what was it?

So were you raised? Don't tell me your mom also approved of you lying.

Or is it?

Stop repeating your many years long bs on this ng and actually respond
in kind to what is presented. We do. You DON'T, habitually.

Stop being a STUPID anti-spanking zealotS!

No one here but you and the compulsives thinks I'm stupid. I will cop to
being an anti spanking zealot though. In the sense I'm zealous in my
pursuit of ending spanking. I think it a good thing.

Hahaha! Even Chris Dunga called you STUPID! Only stupid people like
yourself think that being anti-spanking zealotS is a "good thing"! ;-)

Do you think ending spanking is a bad thing? I thought you wanted
everyone to make up their own mind?

Sometime the cure is worse than the disease. And you don't want people
to make up their own mind? ;-)

Or is it actually true that you wish to side with those that decide to
spank, and against those, such as LaVonne, that decide not to?

Hahaha! I am against all zealotS! I care not if LaVonne decided not
to spank!

Something has to be up with you and how you were raised. Apparently you
can't get over it, while others have been able to. Is there something
special your parents did to you?

No, unlike LaVonne, I wasn't beaten and muffled so that my cries can't
be heard.

So you were beaten and allowed to scream, eh?

Are you so STUPID? I was spanked, not beaten! So you feel that it was
ok to muffled LaVonne?

Sad isn't it, yet she got over it, and refused, courageously, to not
follow the either the herd, nor succumb to the tendency to do to one's
children what was done to one's self.

Hahaha! So you do feel sorry for her?

I wasn't referring to LaVonne though. Any particular reason you wished
to bring her in as an example?

Hahaha! She is your master and you wished to defend her. She used
you to get to me. Why wouldn't I bring her in. She is an anti-spanking
zealotS just like you, for god's sake! ;-)

You should feel sorry for the way LaVonne were raised!

Goodness, you think I do not? Of course I do, and I admire her and
anyone that overcame that and moved on to the better choice: not to risk
one's child and their future by using spanking to parent.

Hihihi! I feel sorry for her too! ;-)

And
unlike your mother, my parents never think that it is ok to call other
woman a "smelly-****" under any circumstances. ;-)

Yes. Mistaking form for function. Common among those that have small
repertoires in child rearing and use spanking instead of thinking.

Hahaha! What a mom!


My mother thought nothing of it except that I was telling the truth and
standing up to someone that advocated, as Fern did, the beating of
children ... stripping them naked, hanging them up in church, and having
the congregation beat them with objects...belts, coat hangers, etc.

My mother had reality sorted out, and did not mistake form for function.
She knew perfectly well the name calling ... especially of those that
deserved it, was not evil, but beating children in such a way WAS evil.

She'd never have defended the parents as that Smelly **** Fern did.

Hahaha! What a mom!

Are you defending Ferns defense of those parents, Doan? Are you, or do I
get another brush off?

I don't know her and it's silly to talk about her behind her back since
she is not here!

You can't answer, can you.

I am not STUPID like you! ;-)

0:- Wrote:
Should the mother have "made up her own mind," as you are fond of
claiming is your position on child discipline?

Was she a vicious killer or was she influenced, just like you like to
influence people than wash your hands of the possible results, after
all, you just "want them to make up their own mind," right?
It seems the mother did make up her own mind given the limited choices
she had. Everyone she knew, The mothers she hung out with used the
Pearls methods. She was not given any other information...thought she
had no other options...and chose not to research these awful people.

So do you want parents to make up their own mind or not? We already have
laws against child-abuse and in this case:
Why would you even ask such a question. Of one does not want parents to
make up their own mind when they are so badly informed they would resort
to walloping children with a piece of pvc pipe. Read up on the Pearls
and answer the actually issues being presented.

We are not discussing the death of the child, but the behavior of the
parent concerning the kinds of discipline used.

I see, the death of the child is of no concern to you!

Not discussing the death of the child is not being unconcerned, Doan.

In this case, yes! That just showed how STUPID you are!

Doan

I discuss many things in a day where at one point I discuss one part of
an issue, then later another. I can discuss the death if you wish.

You know that. You are just feeling how badly you are exposed for what
you are, and what your parents did you to, and how badly skewed you have
described their values.

I bet, if it came down to it, if THEY actually compared what Fern
defended they would be on my side, even if they didn't like what I
called her.

I'll bet THEY'D take stand, though you seem unable or unwilling to.

I'll be they are honorable. I wonder what they'd think of you and your
posting here.

That says loudy
about your agenda and you STUPIDITY!

That I chose to talk about part of a subject rather than all of it at once?

How is that stupid, and how is that showing my agenda would not include
the deaths of the children at another time, even minutes later?

Actually, Doan, I know a great deal about this case. Much more than was
revealed in the news.

I know for instance, that this child was adopted. And I know that the
parents were taught never to spank this child, as it was a previously
abused child. And no agency that places these children teaches
"spanking" or any form of CP as being acceptable.

NONE.

These children are one of those that I warn here about not knowing "The
Line," my infamous question of you, that you could not answer.

And really all children are like this in that parents, though they think
they know it all, do not. Sometimes we don't know a child has had a
trauma outside the home, or that possibly a hidden one is going on IN
the home. To spank a child that is acting out because of a trauma that
we may not know about (and we can't know everything, despite your
intimations otherwise) is the worst sort of cruelty.

Children need HELP growing up, not punishment for having challenges with
their growing-up needs.

You are ignorant, Doan. And you foist your ignorance off on others
instead of admitting to it. You play word and debating games to cover
your ignorance rather than admit to it. I can't imagine how your parents
could possibly support a position where they'd censure me for using foul
words on a foul person and NOT condemn what that person advocated.

Why did YOU not speak up when Fern was doing that.....just though those
parents should "make up their own mind," and society keep their noses out?

I think if you are going to talk like this:

"That says loudy about your agenda and you STUPIDITY!"[sic] you might
want to think about your own agenda and being stupid.

What do you think?

Isn't it time to grow up yet for you?

Kane



AFfromDreamLand

"Paddock, 45, faces a possible lifetime behind bars or execution if
convicted of causing Sean's death."

Doan

Yep Doan, that part of the story is obvious. This not
alt.parenting.infanticide

The only part of the story that is ON TOPIC for this ng is the Corporal
Punishment issue. Spanking and if blanket wrapping was being used as
"punishment to teach" (a failed concept in itself) then THAT is the
topic, and what was being discussed.

Your attempt to run off a side path is duly noted as one of your very
small repertoire of dodges in debate or argument. How about putting
yourself though a little self discipline and debating honestly, for a
change?

It would do you go, and pay honor to your loving parents. They didn't
know you'd turn out like you have and I know they did their very best.

They, in fact, made up their own mind, and look what it got them?

So too, the women in this story "made up her own mind."

Do you actually believe that all parents, by virtue of simply parenthood
should just "make up their own mind" and to hell with the consequences?

When parents fail to seek out safe parenting methods they abrogate that
right to "make up their own mind."

I'd rather not wait for a dead child, nor an injured child, and a parent
in jail.

And one of the ways of intervening is to influence parents to consider
other methods, to examine the possible risks thoroughly and THEN make up
their own mind.

Someone is lying to folks about the risks involved. Some by outright
commission of lies by giving faulty information...the Pearls as an
example, and some by pretending spanking has less risk than it does and
trying to influence parents against it has some deep evil misguided
motive behind it.

I think you fall in one of the two categories above.

Your posting here for years NEVER ONCE defending non-CP parenting
methods, and consistently attacking any posting that supported it.

In addition you have made a continual effort to harass anyone posting
non-CP parenting.

In other words, would your parents be proud of you?

0:-]


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




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

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

0:- Wrote:
So tell us Doan, if they'd been part of the study should Baumrind have
left this child's family in the studied sample or not?

There are apparently a lot of people calling the Pearl's methods
"spanking."

Ever read their dangerous twaddle? If so why haven't you commented on
their "spanking" advice?
Because he cannot defend people like the Pearls, or the Tripps, or
whoever else uses such bizzare, and dangerous methods of "discipline"

Now, why would I "defend" people like these? I am not a lawyer nor am
I being paid to be one. ;-) If you have read the article, you would
have noticed that the cause of death was suffocation:

"Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated."

Are you defending non-cp alternatives like this?
Are you defending the kind of CP they did use? You know perfectly well,
unless you are stupid, that the subject was "spanking," in LaVonne's
comment. Why would you change the subject?

Huh? LaVonne's comment? I was responding to beccafromlaland. Are you
this STUPID?
Sorry my mistake. Do mistakes make people stupid, or do you need to say
this to help you feel better about yourself?

No problem. People do make mistakes, including stupipd people like
yourself! ;-)

Then you do need to say such things to harass.

And the question asked or the charge made for a change, Doan. Show that
your being spanked as a child didn't turn you into a droning liar.

Hahaha! You are showing your STUPIDITY again!
No, I'm looking at how you lie, and how badly you need to scream and go
through your hysterics. If it wasn't how you were raised, what was it?

So were you raised? Don't tell me your mom also approved of you lying.

Nope. That's why I don't.

Or is it?

Stop repeating your many years long bs on this ng and actually respond
in kind to what is presented. We do. You DON'T, habitually.

Stop being a STUPID anti-spanking zealotS!
No one here but you and the compulsives thinks I'm stupid. I will cop to
being an anti spanking zealot though. In the sense I'm zealous in my
pursuit of ending spanking. I think it a good thing.

Hahaha! Even Chris Dunga called you STUPID!

Not about spanking. We were disagreeing on Iraq, and this
administrations actions. Why do you deliberately mislead in this way?
You do it all the time, and seem compulsive about it?

You know perfectly well what our discussion was about. And we can
disagree on one thing and be in perfect agreement on another.

Did you see either one of us disagree on the spanking issue?

No, of course not, so you have to hide the truth to try to make a case
that can't be made.

Only stupid people like
yourself think that being anti-spanking zealotS is a "good thing"! ;-)

Well, then I sure have a lot of company. And you have less and less all
the time, while I have more and more all the time.

Maybe, like slavers, and those that held women in chattel slavery, and
thought children were property to be worked, or even killed if they
wished, they were the stupid, and those against those barbarities were
the ones not stupid.

In time, Doan, just give it time. The laws are already in place all over
the planet, and more and more in this country. School after school is
taking the authority away from the state in fact, and they can because
they know it's moral and you cannot MAKE them spank the children in
their care.

Everyone that YOU call stupid, and a zealot can easily see the logic and
the ethics in the question of their choice not to spank, even though the
law allows it, and all around them others (who are terrified of
children) urge them to.

Some of us have courage, and some of you don't. In fact most of you are
cowards that are in fact terrified of little tiny children. Just as your
parents were of you.

Do you think ending spanking is a bad thing? I thought you wanted
everyone to make up their own mind?

Sometime the cure is worse than the disease.

Obscure babbling doesn't provide any issue to examine.

And you don't want people
to make up their own mind? ;-)

Sure I do, but not without some basic information that you and other's
peddle that's dangerous and risky.

That's what the Paddock article where they killed their adopted is all
about. Wrong information. Inability through ignorance to stay well back
of the line, because it's non-definable in the real world under real
dynamic circumstances.

That's the terrible risk all spankers take. Even your own parents could
have damaged you, and all the answers aren't in on that yet. 0:-

Or is it actually true that you wish to side with those that decide to
spank, and against those, such as LaVonne, that decide not to?

Hahaha! I am against all zealotS!

Are you against all those that are zealous in their work, in trying to
fight disease, poverty, racism? They are "zealots," are they not?

I see nothing particular wrong in being zealous, why do you?

zeal·ot Audio pronunciation of "zealot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zlt)
n.

1.
1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
2. A fanatically committed person.

zealot

n 1: a member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century
who fought to the death against the Romans and who killed or persecuted
Jews who collaborated with the Romans [syn: Zealot] 2: a fervent and
even militant proponent of something [syn: partisan, drumbeater]


You are tiresome in your claims and challenges because when you put them
out there you will not respond to questions and challenges concerning
them. As though you have no moral ground, or ethical position to defend.

You simply babble on endlessly.

So, prove me wrong.

Do you think that any of the above definitions, when applied to those
that oppose spanking and want to have laws against it are any different
than the people that fight racism, ended slavery, got laws passed to
protect children from overwork in factories running lethal machinery?

How about those zealots that got women the vote, and the right to own,
and the right to earn, and the right to contract and inherit?

I care not if LaVonne decided not
to spank!

I do. What you care about is obvious. You care about promoting spanking
and fighting against alternatives, do you not?

Something has to be up with you and how you were raised. Apparently you
can't get over it, while others have been able to. Is there something
special your parents did to you?

No, unlike LaVonne, I wasn't beaten and muffled so that my cries can't
be heard.
So you were beaten and allowed to scream, eh?

Are you so STUPID? I was spanked, not beaten!

Many children that were beaten can only remember the spankings, and not
the beatings. Parents don't beat every time they "spank."

I simply pointed out, JUST LIKE YOU DO, and of course we KNOW you are
stupid, that you stated it in such a way as it could be taken as you
saying you had been beaten but not muffled.

So you feel that it was
ok to muffled LaVonne?

Want to continue word games so you don't have to deal with the reality
of child abuse?

I don't recall bringing up LaVonne being muffled, and not bringing
something up doesn't mean one thinks it's okay. That's why I ASK you
about you not speaking up about Fern's support of parentally approved
church beatings.

And no, I don't think it was okay for LaVonne to be beaten or "muffled."

I've answered you. Do you have enough honor to answer me about Fern?

Sad isn't it, yet she got over it, and refused, courageously, to not
follow the either the herd, nor succumb to the tendency to do to one's
children what was done to one's self.

Hahaha! So you do feel sorry for her?

Of course not. I feel sorry about what happened to her, just as I said
did about it happening to anyone.

I also admire her. You seem to be attached to the negative as long as it
appears to damage someone in some way.

You want me to appear to be saying she's pitiful, don't you, sick child?
That there's something wrong with her, don't you?

On the contrary. If you pay attention to everything I said you'd see my
admiration. But you have to leave that out to fit your perverted view
of the world to match your view of yourself.

I wasn't referring to LaVonne though. Any particular reason you wished
to bring her in as an example?

Hahaha! She is your master and you wished to defend her.

I admire her. I don't have a master. That's the talk used by people like
you, not me. I'm not her master. I am yours though, in this situation.
And that's what makes you lose it like this continuously. And I do it by
simply bringing you back to the truth, like it or not.

She used
you to get to me.

Your reasoning is badly effected. But I'd love to see you try and prove
such a silly claim.

Why wouldn't I bring her in.

Oh, because her situation didn't fit what we were talking about.

She is an anti-spanking
zealotS just like you, for god's sake! ;-)

No she isn't. She's a Christian. I am not. If memory serves, she is more
accepting of a consequence model I am not. We don't consider it, or at
least I don't consider, such differences any hindrance to our shared
goal of putting an end to the barbarous practice of hitting children and
trying to call it other than what it is, assault.

I imagine we don't like the same brand of tea either. 0:- Can't say
really. Doesn't matter.

But you keep straining. Sooner or later you'll have taken enough of your
rhetorical laxative to squeeze something out.

You should feel sorry for the way LaVonne were raised!

Goodness, you think I do not? Of course I do, and I admire her and
anyone that overcame that and moved on to the better choice: not to risk
one's child and their future by using spanking to parent.

Hihihi! I feel sorry for her too! ;-)

I didn't say I feel sorry for her. You have said I did twice in just his
same way. There is no "too" that we share.

I feel sorry for what happened to her. I feel sorry that humans have, in
some instances, passed this practice of child assault, what it should
and one day will be universally called, legally, down the ages and
visited it on generation after generation.

I am heartened that despite all THAT, still people as strong an
courageous as LaVonne can overcome it. Some don't make it, Doan. 0:-

We are waiting for you.

You can admit your parents were wrong and still love and respect them.
Honest. There's no paradox there because they were simply doing what was
done to them and what they knew how. I presume you know more than them,
so it's up to you, like it was to LaVonne, and others, to break it.

To move on, to make child rearing the joy filled rewarding and happy
experience that it is for non-spankers.

And
unlike your mother, my parents never think that it is ok to call other
woman a "smelly-****" under any circumstances. ;-)
Yes. Mistaking form for function. Common among those that have small
repertoires in child rearing and use spanking instead of thinking.

Hahaha! What a mom!

Yes, she was. Very.

She knew what evil was. And didn't confuse form for function.

My mother thought nothing of it except that I was telling the truth and
standing up to someone that advocated, as Fern did, the beating of
children ... stripping them naked, hanging them up in church, and having
the congregation beat them with objects...belts, coat hangers, etc.

My mother had reality sorted out, and did not mistake form for function.
She knew perfectly well the name calling ... especially of those that
deserved it, was not evil, but beating children in such a way WAS evil.

She'd never have defended the parents as that Smelly **** Fern did.

Hahaha! What a mom!

Yes, she would know instantly that those people were wrong, and that
Fern was for defending them.

Are you defending Ferns defense of those parents, Doan? Are you, or do I
get another brush off?

I don't know her

She posted her for years. You seem quite willing to involve yourself
with others here that you "don't know." And even give you opinions of
their beliefs and comments.

You are certainly one dimensional.

and it's silly to talk about her behind her back since
she is not here!

And you know she's not here how? I thought you didn't know her?

And you talk about Straus and Chris, is that not correct? One has NEVER
been here, and the other hasn't for many months...nearly as long or
maybe longer than Fern's been missing.

You need to do a reality check, Doan.

You can't answer, can you.

I am not STUPID like you! ;-)

You have your own special way then? 0:-

0:- Wrote:
Should the mother have "made up her own mind," as you are fond of
claiming is your position on child discipline?

Was she a vicious killer or was she influenced, just like you like to
influence people than wash your hands of the possible results, after
all, you just "want them to make up their own mind," right?
It seems the mother did make up her own mind given the limited choices
she had. Everyone she knew, The mothers she hung out with used the
Pearls methods. She was not given any other information...thought she
had no other options...and chose not to research these awful people.

So do you want parents to make up their own mind or not? We already have
laws against child-abuse and in this case:
Why would you even ask such a question. Of one does not want parents to
make up their own mind when they are so badly informed they would resort
to walloping children with a piece of pvc pipe. Read up on the Pearls
and answer the actually issues being presented.

We are not discussing the death of the child, but the behavior of the
parent concerning the kinds of discipline used.

I see, the death of the child is of no concern to you!
Not discussing the death of the child is not being unconcerned, Doan.

In this case, yes! That just showed how STUPID you are!

No, the death of the child was not by spanking, Doan. Nor beating.

We weren't even discussing the death of the child so much as the beating
aspect.

And not having come to a place in the discussion where we WHERE
discussing the death doesn't in the least mean that we are not concerned
about that death.

I am not discussing deaths until I've discussed the spanking aspect. If
we get to it, we'll discuss it.

I didn't see you rush into the death issue with your first words, did I?

You are all criticism and no depth, Doan. It's all you have got. And
pitiful to watch.

Doan

You poor sad child.

Give us some more of your faked laughter.

0:-




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

[quote=Doan]On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


0:- Wrote:
So tell us Doan, if they'd been part of the study should Baumrind have
left this child's family in the studied sample or not?

There are apparently a lot of people calling the Pearl's methods
"spanking."

Ever read their dangerous twaddle? If so why haven't you commented on
their "spanking" advice?

Because he cannot defend people like the Pearls, or the Tripps, or
whoever else uses such bizzare, and dangerous methods of "discipline"

Now, why would I "defend" people like these? I am not a lawyer nor am
I being paid to be one. ;-) If you have read the article, you would
have noticed that the cause of death was suffocation:

"Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated."

Are you defending non-cp alternatives like this?


I did read the article and the cause of death did not escape my attention. Having never read any of the Pearls materiels I don't know if they espouse to this techniques. I know they recommend using "whatever means necessary" to subdue a child. Beat a child until their cries are nothing more than broken wimpers, and if they don't cry beat them until they do because not crying is a sign of rebellion.

wrapping a small child tightly in a blanket IS CP it is torture, and obviously dangerous.


Should the mother have "made up her own mind," as you are fond of
claiming is your position on child discipline?

Was she a vicious killer or was she influenced, just like you like to
influence people than wash your hands of the possible results, after
all, you just "want them to make up their own mind," right?[/color]

It seems the mother did make up her own mind given the limited choices
she had. Everyone she knew, The mothers she hung out with used the
Pearls methods. She was not given any other information...thought she
had no other options...and chose not to research these awful people.
[/color]
So do you want parents to make up their own mind or not? We already have
laws against child-abuse and in this case:

"Paddock, 45, faces a possible lifetime behind bars or execution if
convicted of causing Sean's death."


I want parents to be INFORMED, and I want Children to be PROTECTED. It's WAAAAY too easy to cross the line from a swat on the bottom to full fledged child abuse in the eyes of the law.

0:- wrote:

Carlson LaVonne wrote:

And even if she had been given the tools, there is no guarantee this
would not have happened.


The challenge, as I've seen it in mental health work and parent
training, hasn't been just the "tools" part, but sometimes more so the
belief system in place. This case has that big time. Her church was
apparently full of people following the Pearl's "Training them Up"
dangerous nonsense.

This is hardly the first time that families involved with the Pearl's
"teachings" have found themselves engaged with the legal system.

No it isn't the first time followers of the Pearl's abusive parenting
system have found themselves on the wrong side of the law. And you're
correct about the "tools" part. I continue to hear that parents
discipline by hitting their children because they do not know what else
to do. I never bought this argument. I have never met a spanking
parent who used no other parenting strategies. It simply came down to a
belief system -- children need to be hit and that is the only way to
raise "good" children.

This ng has many individuals who continually

advocate abuse in the name of discipline, even though nurturing tools
have been made available.


0:-) not any more it doesn't. Doan is the only babbler that continues.
Others pop in and pretend they have are brave and have something useful
to say, and run away as fast as they can. Just harassment because they
all know they lost the debate long ago. That's what's so fascinating
about Doan't. He actually believes in his nonsense.

You know, you're correct. Doan is the only person who remains in his
position of hitting and hurting children. And with what he posts, he's
probably done more for the case of non-spanking than any anti-spanker
that has ever posted on this ng.

Parents hurt children in the name of discipline because they can.


Yes, the law gives them that power. Society is running out of patience
with it more and more though. Humans appear to be moving, even if in
fits and starts and the occasional backslide a step or two, in the
direction of more ethical and moral behavior.

That's been the case historically with other human social issues not
unlike this one. A child's rights.

I see more and more individuals that are unwilling to tolerate the lack
of protection we afford our children in the US. I see changes coming,
and I even see them in the form of a law that provides children the same
protection from physical assault that every adult member enjoys.
Intolerance of child maltreatment is mounting.

Parents hurt children in the name of discipline because it makes them
feel strong and powerful.


When you examine each of the many reasons presented by those on the pro
side in the end it comes down to exactly that and nothing else.

Yup! Most were hit and hurt by their own parents, and were made to feel
powerless, weak, and helpless. And when they have their own children,
it's their turn to regain the power they never had as children, so they
victimize another generation.

Parents hurt children in the name of discipline because they have the
misguided idea that this is appropriate parenting, and makes them
"good parents."


My experience with abusive parents whose children ended up in the mental
health system was that many in fact KNOW they are doing wrong. And that
it's inappropriate. A paradox those of us that do not support CP have
trouble even grasping, but common enough in humans. We can be perverse
to an extreme, knowingly, and not stop anyway.

There is considerable evidence experientially in the mental heath field
that childhood trauma plays a large part in that compulsive behavior.

Good point.

Parents hurt children because they view children as property and feel
that no one should interfer with their family.


It's the common rationale of child abusers. It's hard to reconcile with
the Christianity I grew up in. The children are God's last I heard. We
are they caretakers, not the owners.

As an atheist my position now is that they belong to themselves and we
STILL are the caretakers.

As a Christian, I believe we all belong to each other, for we are part
of a larger community. Children need to be loved and nurtured by the
entire community, for the family is far larger than a nuclear family
unit. A friend of mine gave a wonderful sermon on family last Sunday.
After dedicating a baby, he looked at the congregation and said "We are
all responsible for this little one, and for her family. If she fails
in life, it is because we failed to love, support, and nurture her. If
she fails in life, it is our failure, not hers. And if she ever
experiences ridicule, disrespect, or pain from any of us, we will answer
before god." And this was a fundamentalist Baptist church, where the
primary congregation was African-American.

The Pearl's preach abuse in the name of Christianity. And another
little one suffered the consequences.


I need to go back an review the Pearl's "teachings" or others like them
and see if that blanket wrapping (which is punitive ... and Doan't
wished to pretend it was non-punitive...who quaint and misguided and
symptomatic of the thinking of an abused child) trick comes from
anything in their lexicon. It was long ago discredited in mental health
work...and was dangerous if done by untrained non-certified and licensed
practitioners.

It's dangerous, period. And it has nothing to do with Christianity, as
the Pearls love to proclaim.

It's time to change laws in this country that allow parents to hit,
hurt, shame, and even murder children in the name of discipline.


Well, we see that happening in education on what appears to be an
accelerated pace these days. And what delights me is that it's happening
at the grassroots level, school districts are overruling state
law...don'tchajustloveit?

Even individual campuses are doing it. School house by school house.
Something wonderful is happening.

I'm sure doan would disagree.
Yes it is.


He'd claim neutrality, even in the face of years and years of posting
history, and argue that the law doesn't let parents make up their own
mind. chuckle

Doan's never been neutral on this issue in his entire life (grin)!

LaVonne

Kane


LaVonne

beccafromlalaland wrote:

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/418676.html


It's so sad that this happened...imagine how much pain and suffering
could have been avoided if she had been given the tools to nurture her
children instead of being told how to abuse them.

Um, These kids were all ADOPTED.

Did the article mention where the FATHER was
while all of this stupidity took place?

Are you nut cases pretending that unless somebody
is an anti-spanking zealot they think it's OK to
beat the heck out of a kid with a PVC pipe or roll them
up tightly in a blanket as a restraint?

Demagoguery, to pretend that it is an either/or proposition.

In point of fact, this story is NOT about spanking, period.

Only the anti-spanking zealots try to pretend that
such abuses are equal to spanking, an effort
to exaggerate, and demagoguery.

Greegor wrote:
Are you nut cases pretending that unless somebody
is an anti-spanking zealot they think it's OK to
beat the heck out of a kid with a PVC pipe or roll them
up tightly in a blanket as a restraint?

No. Are you pretending the spankers would universally condemn this action?

The fact is even the law allows it. In fact a recent case of a city
councilman charged with child abuse had a finding of acquittal, even
though the man left belt and belt buckle marks in profusion on the child.

Are you suggesting a judge is an anti spanking zealot, or a compulsive
spanking supporter?


Demagoguery, to pretend that it is an either/or proposition.

Then why do you do so?

The fact is that is NOT the claim. The claim is, clearly, that the line
between abuse and "spanking" is undefined, and likely undefinable. Even
the law waits until INJURY occurs, and even then is inconsistent in
application from place to place time to time even by judge to judge.

In point of fact, this story is NOT about spanking, period.

Of course it is. This is a practice used by thousands that believe in
the Pearls system of child raising. It is corporal punishment that is
acceptable to them. "Spanking" in context in this ng is any kind of CP
that some deem as acceptable for child rearing purposes.

Only the anti-spanking zealots try to pretend that
such abuses are equal to spanking, an effort
to exaggerate, and demagoguery.

I cannot understand why you would claim something of us that in fact
spankers DO defend as acceptable child rearing and NOT beatings.

In fact, Fern, your good buddy, defended hanging children up in Church
naked, and having the congregation beat them with objects as a parental
right not to be interfered with by the state. You don't recall that?

I suggest you do a little search before you reply.

I've posted the URL and the quote from here post before.

Another poster who is long missing called his beatings to the point of
of bleeding as acceptable and deserved.

And the use of switches, belts, paddles, and other objects like wooden
spoons are regularly defended by the spanking compulsives.

Don't you read, or remember anything you read beyond a few hours?

Go on, tell me spankers haven't defended every thing I just claimed.

And much of it right in this ng.

The Pearls followers defend their practices as normal, acceptable, and
desirable "training up a child" methods. And NOT abuse.

And I made NO claim that all spankers agree with them.

You are lying again.

Kane



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