A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

| Kids should work...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6th 03, 12:27 AM
Kane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Kids should work...

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...


On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

We ARE discussing "beating" of children.


Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking" and

if
you can't determing the difference between spanking and beating,
according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking Zealot,

ASZ.

True! Just ask the social science researchers if they their studies

was
on spanking or "beating"


I don't need to ask.

They were of neither.

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive terms.

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite aware
of the limits of social science studies.

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical
defenses and arguments.

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend there

is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what

"reasonable"
doublt is?


Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them.

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice.

The difference between us is that you lack the morals and conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes, that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they would wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well as DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and spanking.

It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails on the
incidence of abuse.

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her on the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop crying so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million reports of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate half

are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.


Why would you make such a demand?

Are you calling all the posters that have posted that here for years
liars? Or are you just unable to read? Our own Plant-life cross-posts
such things and has for years.

A google on ["child abuse" reports+million] would turn up hundreds of
such postings. If you actually believed it to be untrue you'd have
happily cranked up the actual number yourself and posted it to refute
me.

Instead you make demands.

This wasn't a reasonable request by a reasonable man, it was a school
yard ploy by a child that knows he can't defend his naughty behavior.

And what percentage is that of the child
population? 1%, 0.5%, or 0.25%? You tell me, Kane.


I might if you told me the point of your asking?

Clarify.

I fail to see the connection to the percentage of children from the
population and my claim that millions of child abuse reports are taken
each year by police and CPS.

And finally, before you tell me why, please pose an argument. You may
mark from this day forward I don't respond to demands, even if
seemingly reasonable, if you conceal your premise and or argument.

Out of context isn't going to work for you...at least not with me. You
have only the they unwary to play with any more, Doan.

We who know you have wearied of your silliness.

I have seen my own son covered in bruises, administered by his

mother
and/or
her lover who is a professional martial arts expert.


If they are the legal caregives and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of

abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

The son has "NO defense"!!! The logic of Kane! Needs I say more? ;-)


You didn't bother to read. I'll re-post by cut and paste from above.

Read and rephrase your comment (I see you forgot a ? After the !!!)
for clarity. It makes no sense unless I assume you didn't read and
understand:

(Edited for spelling correction)
"
If they are the legal care-givers and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of

abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

"
Notice the "guidelines of abuse statutes in your state?"

THAT is what these people stand for that you think are just scoring
points, as you say below.

What "people"? Anybody defending child abuse here????


Yes. The Plant. Greegor the Whore, and Doan the Duplicitous. Read on
and it will become clear.

I, and I know you won't believe it, am NOT, decidedly NOT, scoring
points as an objective. Don't mind getting a laugh now and then,

but I
am deadly serious about putting and end for all time to the

barbaric
practice of punishing children.

Yup! Kane is going to set all the children in juvenile halls FREE!

;-)

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to work to reduce the numbers
going in, and the numbers coming out who have healed from the
brutality of their parents that ended in them being incarcerated.

And I'm going to do it, by influence now...since I'm not personally
engaged in juvenile work any longer....through the people I trained to
use supportive non-pain based methods of therapy.

Children that have been spanked are usually experts as dealing with
and even using aversive techniques. I don't want the to continue to
practice avoidance over development of conscience, nor the more
sophisticated threat and pain on others their parents began
instructing them in.

You can label it "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type BS grunting

noises",

Sure you do, if you have completely run out of argument, logical,
intelligent, fact based argument, for what CANNOT be argued. Doan
knows that and has been playing weasel for years with it.

LOL! I have never called anyone "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type
BS grunting noises"


Then you admit to being part of the crowd I refer to that one member
of did. Did you then disagree with your new butt buddy, Greegor the
Whore?

You are known by the company you keep, unfair as that might be. Thank
you.

but I have seen Kane called other women "smelly-****"!


Unless you have met the subject of my epitaph, you cannot with
assurance claim I called a
"Women" a "smelly-****." In fact, even if It dresses as a women, says
It's a women, you still can't say with conviction....and I suspect you
don't KNOW It's a women at all, unless you have been down sucking at
that smelly ****.

I called a poster I refer to as The Plant, and respectfully assign
lovely plant names to, a "smelly ****."

It richly deserved that...though I apologize to any women her for that
sexist choice. But then I did say "smelly." That surely doesn't apply
to all women.

He thinks putting the responsibility for the actions of the parent

on
the parent, ignoring that without restraints children at taking the
beatings YOUR child is getting, absolves him of any blame.

ABSOLUTELY!


Thank you. Proof of your dysfunctional conscience. The failure, so
often seen in pain parented children, to develop the important
characteristic of human beings, empathy into conscience.

I have no responsibility for your child.


Another clear indicator. Humans, being social animals by evolution and
contemporary evidence of their desire to clump into packs...even their
driving habits show it on the freeways.....have by default
responsibility for each other.

The only ones that exhibit signs of NOT feeling some responsibility
for other human beings are those that are in that spectrum of
socio-pathology of those that have dysfunctions of conscience, and the
latent empathy that normal humans are born with.

Latent empathy, seen as automatic responses in very young infants
(crying when others cry, etc.) can be developed or it can be retarded
by either neglect to stimulate it, or by suppression of it because of
pain and fear.

The latter two can be naturally occurring, as in a long illness, or
continuous painful stimulation as in war or famine or other stressors,
or by parental handling and treatment of the child.

The latter is the most prevalent in our world.

Doan is an example. Though I cannot say, beyond his admission that he
was pain parented, he said he was spanked by his parents, which
conditions cause the atrophy of his conscience.

That is why I am
not telling you or any other parent how to parent!


Which goes to my claim that you lack the capacity, even the
realization of it's existence, of empathy. In ‘Society,' including
even the meaning of its name, one DOES have a sense of responsibility
for other members of that group...child or adult humans.

We can even have it for animals, even for anything in existence. But
to not have it for children?

Tsk.

This is the same as leaving it up to bank robbers whether or not
killing the customers during a robbery is the best course of

action.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Great logic!


It wasn't an offering of logic. It was a metaphor. Metaphor's do not
require logic to serve their intent. It is to trigger some logical
reasonable response in this case.

You didn't get it.

I failed.

The victims still suffer, and Doan wants you to think he has no
responsibilty morally for that.

Yup, Kane! Robbers kill their victims because of me!!!


You and our conscience and your claims do not belong in the metaphor.
You and your claims and your conscience SHOULD however be in the point
of the metaphor. A sense of social responsibility for children.

but
people who condone that kind of human behaviour will never get MY

respect!

He has no worry about that. As you say, he is a point scorer, not a
morally fit person. He doesn't care. That is the result of

spankings
he received as a child and cannot bear to hold his parents

responsible
for.

Kane is talking about morality! Yikes! ;-)


I presume you wish to continue. Say stop whenever you wish. This is
just a check. My own conscience requires that I be aware of those I
interact with, and the media limits me. I'm accustomed to body
language, nuances in tone of voice, pacing of speech, etc.

Words are what we use, so words are what I have to ask for to govern
my participation.

He thinks they taught him something.

How do you know that I think, Kane? ;-)


I don't. I do know what you write. I presume you were thinking when
you wrote them. I most likely should have said "claims" rather than
"thinks."

Thank you for the English lesson. Let us hope one day the pupil will
surpass the master.


I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulant 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.


I have been on this newsgroup for a while now.
I know how to deal with them. The more they
post publicly the better it is for others to
see their true character. Sit back an enjoy
the spectacles! :-)

I have not been on this NG much.
Too me it seems that a lot of heated debate here is due to

misunderstanding.

On the contrary. We understand the opponents position very well
indeed. The opponents of ASZs can't define anything about spanking
wihtout weales words, incomprehensible instence on US making the
definition we don't have to make because WE chose NOT to spank
children.

And you are welcome to make your own choice!


I know. And those in my society with a conscience, and the
intelligence and mental development to understand by and use cause and
effect reasoning objectively, are heavily invested in my choice.

They tend to insist on being heard before I have a chance to degrade
society with my abused children.

Why do you have a
problem with other people making their own choice?


Because I DO have the capacity for analytical thinking and can apply
it to social and political issues. Spanking is one, hence I'm invested
in that issue. I actually care about how children are prepared for and
enter society. I worked at and trained others that work at one of the
many way-stations that children in pain parenting families stopped at.

I would have rather been unemployed.

But then, long before I had those experiences, from about age 19, I
was acutely aware this world was not a safe place and the people in it
tended to be the most pervasive of dangerous elements. Drop me in a
remote desert or forested mountains and I'll sleep soundly with no
worries. The dangers are predictable and very manageable. Drop me in a
city and I know perfectly well there is considerable unpredictability
from that demographic that have been raised with pain parenting.

I had childhood friends that were themselves not well behaved, in this
sense of being dangerous to others. I know how they were parented.
Their judgement is poor, and they lack a developed conscience. I had a
very well developed conscience at 11 or 12.

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in the
archives they have either described spanking very different and or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they

wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.

I and many people have examined the risks


Citations please.

and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better.


Citations please. And try to find some that aren't in Goobldegook.

The sources you are most likely are to refer to are focused primarily
on pain ... that is they are still punishment based, simple not direct
CP.

Frankly, you'll be pleased to know, I think in many instances they
fail even more than spanking. Both are pointless when dealing with
creatures that want to and are committed to learning.

To use pain parenting one has to be so blind or ignorant they believe
the child doesn't want to learn, just because the child want's to
learn something the parent either doesn't see, or the parent doesn't
want them to learn.

Instead of redirecting and teaching, the use aversion. That is one of
a maxim of pain parenting.

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems 10

times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would use

such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege

removal
are counterproductive."


Interestingly this is yet another of those deceptively worded bits you
are so enamored of. Even a perfunctory scan shows that...or you took
it so out of context the authors can't be understood.

The only possible way to understand even the bogus claim would be to
rewrite it. I'll do so, with the apparently missing but author hoped
for "understood" words included.

Edit where you disagree, this is an exercise in clarification, not a
debate at this point:


The use of alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial
problems 10 times
more than did non-impulsive physical punishment (with impulsive
physical punishment not accounted for), and the alternative
disciplinary responses predicted child impulsivity 3 times more
strongly.

No one would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out,
and/or privilege removal are counterproductive."

Here is an accounting of the bogus:

- Who is using reasoning, time out, and/privilege removal as being
counterproductive, except me of course? (Not a factor in this
statement) Non spankers use a lot o these aversive punishments, but
not as much as spankers.

- What "antisocial behaviors" are being tabulated. Are they actual
directed at others words, hits, pinches, throwing, or are they in the
- non compliance and exploratory category, the things children do by
their nature and development? If the former they are serious, if the
latter, it's to laugh....no use of alternative disciplinary responses
or non-impulsive physical punishments need to be use at all. It's a
test of hurt vs non-hurt, not one kind of punishment being more or
less effective than another. Or it should be.

- What, for goodness sake, is a "non impulsive physical punishment,"
as opposed to an impulsive one? And how could the be testing for the
latter. And who, upon survey when asked, "did you spank after giving
it some thought and deciding on the punishment, or did you just
impulsively spank?" would answer affirmatively to the latter very
often?

- And I must revisit this strange free floating declarative: "No one
would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or
privilege removal are counterproductive."

Why would THAT be the question? Productivity is the question do they
work? Not, do they keep something from working...counterproductive.

I'm reminded of my efforts over the years to decipher federal
guidelines relating to the application of federal laws. The laws
themselves are paeans of clarity compared to the gobbled rhetoric of
the guidelines. And the damage is clearly evident in what bureaucrats
can get away with in the applications of the law under such wording.

So with the very strange citation that was for support of your claim
of

"I and many people have examined the risks and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better." What? Not more counterproductive? That
non-impulsive CP was three times better at child impulsivity control?

Just how much "impulsivity" (what the hell IS that exactly) do we wish
to control in the child? Or is this the Singapore model?


That is why I have been asking for years now. Is there any
"peer-reviewed" research that showed that the non-cp alternatives are
any better under the same statistical scrutiny?


The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long
long ago. I love reading it, watching you demand, refusing to make a
simple request of the researcher. He's nice, really he is, but I don't
think you agree with his findings so you are staying as far from them
as possible.

And...as usual.....

You didn't provide a citation that included "the same statistical
scrutiny." You are simply up to the same asinine nonsense as always.
Demands for proof where you provide none yourself.

If you ask for statistics to refute your claims the lest you could
provide is some statistically valid studies. There aren't any.

If you are asking for us to match the "statistical scrutiny" of the
proffered citation, don't you think that a bit lower than Strauss?

Haven't you ever noticed that I've never cited Strauss for support of
any claim of mine.

And in the end simply data counting, like abuse data, looking around
you, would provide anybody with "reasonable standards" all the support
they needed to understand the risks of spanking vs the near zero risk
of not. We can't say, and neither can you, exactly how much the risk
is, but we CAN say they are high.

There ARE broken bones, and minds, out there the result of spanking. I
play the odds. No spanking has very low odds of resulting in injury.

I still can't find where anyone injured a child by not spanking them.
Please provide some data on this. A negative is so difficult to prove
that scientist use as an axiom, "You cannot prove a negative."

What they HAVE learned to do over the years is avoid the hard
questions. Either they refuse to answer, or debate (they do

anything
but debate when asked to), or they insist we answer our own

questions.

Are you talking about LaVonne? ;-)


Why yes. I'm thinking of her restraint and humoring of you and the
Plantlife. I have no such inhibitions or niceties of delivery. I'm
thinking that your citations and claims just as this one you tried
with me left her incredulous. The sheer gall of anyone to try and palm
off such drivel and defend with such unreasoned claims as yours is an
affront to anyone that can think and is honest.


But in the final analysis, what drives folks away from you is the
disgust at your continued defense of what is so plainly indefensible.
The nonsense desperate twisting with divergent word choices, the
reliance on fuzzy meanings and word choices that are plainly
indefinable, that citation filled with them, concepts that come out of
no known discipline, social science, medical science, mental
health...it's as though you and your sources are making up a
discipline of madness.

A whole segment of the population screaming, "I'd hit my child if I
want to and call it spanking and I'll invent MORE words to
obfuscate...and you can't stop me because the law and some "reasonable
people" protect me."

You are witnessing, if you've followed this thread, something of a
thumbnail sketch of what has been going on for years. The same

tired
avoidance and misdirection and frequently instead of answering

asking
stupid unrelated questions.

That would be you, Kane! ;-)


What questions have I not answered that you asked? That is so common
in your posts that great long sections I leave in just so folks can
see all the times you simply ignored, and all the times you've said
things as brilliant as "That would be you, Kane! ;-)" instead of
directly answering the charge or claim made.

So me all those times you haven't misdirected, all those times you
have asked questions that weren't stupid, "Are you talking about
LaVonne? ;-)"

You've no arguments. Just a litany of such garbage.

We don't spank, hence he have no worry about injury to your

children.
The ONLY argment they've ever been able to mount against

non-spanking
is "you can't prove by peer reviewed scientific research that it

works
better than spanking."

And your answer is????


My answer is: And again, garbage.

No one can set up the experiment. It would be immoral and illegal.

So you refuse and deny the studies that are observational and survey
with a claim they aren't scientific on the same standards where the
subject can be destroyed or manipulated painfully.

What they smugly wallow around in is the denial that we don't have

to.
They have jails and mental illness on their side to defend spanking
and pain parenting....it abviously works, if you want to keep those
places busy.

Just look at Singapore and Sweden. :-)


As I said, "smugly."

What wold I look for, corruption and dictatorial savagery against the
people on the one hand, and less child abuse on the other?

Our children, who they claim are spoiled and are little bundles of

ASB
(anti social behavior) are the criminals and crazies, yet our

children
can't be found in such populations in any statistically significant
numbers, and when one gets down to it, since 90+% of children are
spanked in this country, it's a given, unless they want to prove

that
teh 10% or so unspanked are ten percent of prison and mental healt
facility population.

Lying again, Kane. Did I say anything about your children being

spoiled?

Did I say you did? I said "they."

Is "they" inclusive of only YOU and no one else? I had no idea you
were a plural. Sockpuppetry?

Semantic trickery isn't debate. It's a ploy. You are exposed.

In this case I suspect we are not all talking about the same kind

of
"beating" of children.


No, actually we are NOT. The language is of child abuse by
"discipline" is kept intentionally vague by them because they know
they cannot defend such practices in concrete measurable terms.

Short
of experiments that were desctructive of the subjects they are up

the
creek.

Then the researchers must be stupid right, Kane?


It's "stupid" not to use test subjects in experiments when it would be
immoral and illegal?

You refuse to accept as valid other studies and methodology Doan. Who
would be the stupid one? Should there be no observational only or
observational non destructive, survey, or even review of the body of
research because those do not meet the standard of medical experiment?

Personally I don't think we could get most parents to give up their
children such things and autopsy later.

But we note you didn't respond to anything but the last sentence. No
opinion on the other claims I made. You are known, sometimes, Doan, by
the company you don't keep.

Did they study "beating"
and not spanking???


They studied CP. Sadly, they did not accept that some parents will,
with your support and permission, decide for themselves what
reasonable CP is, and manage to injure and or kill their children.

Now there would be a study. The entire spectrum.

Surely YOU could do it Doan.

They seem quite willing to continue the risky practice and let the
children be injured by those who lose control and pass the line

into
abuse to preserve THEIR right to whack their children when and how
they see fit, as though it were some medieval right of the manor.

Yup! Parents just don't care about their own kids!!!


Oh, I think you shouldn't make such a statement in the plural. I have
to point out your disreputable use of English once again.

Back for another English lesson folks. One he won't bother answer
to...but necessary after all:

One has to presume, in the use of the plural that all individuals in
the set have the same characteristics being associated...as in "don't
care about their kids?"

Since that is patently untrue....some parents do care and some don't,
then it is incorrect to assign such a belief to the opponent. I didn't
say, you might not, that all parents didn't care about their kids, as
evidenced by my use of "those who lose control."

That would indicate to most native users, and reasonably literate
users, of the English language that I referred to a subset of parents,
not the whole.

Which introduces the interesting opportunity for a question:

Do you think I meant all parents don't care about their children?
What in my post would lead you to believe that, and if you cannot find
it are you prepared to retract the obviously rhetorical and accusatory
question?

Their claims to defend the practice amount to "it's been done for
thousands of years without harm...etc." When they know damn well

it
has had great harm.

Yup! Parents just don't care about their children. Parents are just
there to harm their kids!!! Great logic, Kane! ;-)


In the matter of logic I just blushed for you.

In the matter of honesty pertaining to you, I just flushed.

In the matter of conscience and decency pertaining to you, I just
sighed.

For you see, Doan, not a soul here, not even your Tree, or your Whore,
could support that you don't know that SOME parents, that very
population that overshoots the mark on spanking and other harm to
children, DON'T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN SUFFICIENTLY NOT TO HARM THEM.

So "no," not all parents. And "yes," some parents. That has to be true
with rare exception when using plurals to distinguish as large a
demographic as "parents."

Or do you really want to defend a claim (if you are making it) that
ALL parents love their children?

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters of

harm
or not have been harmed by their own received spankings as

children.

AND KANE RECEIVED NO SPANKINGS AND LOOK HOW A "NEVER-SPANKED" KID

LIKE
KANE TURNED OUT!!! :-)


On what evidence do you base your claim I received no spankings as a
child? I had many people parent me. I've said so. When asked I
honestly answered that my parents never spanked me.

You have a problem with plurals and singulars and the understanding of
them, do you not?

I've never said if anyone else spanked me or not. And frankly, other
than your use of something to harass with, the information is of no
use to you. So, no deal.

So, how have I turned out?

Well....

I have a peace of mind and comfort I didn't know could come with so
much work of the kind I did. And it's with some pride I say that I
managed to not burn out as others did along the way.

I am your worst nightmare, Doan.

And there are many more just like me. Many are parents that got the
message themselves, or professionals that came to it through study and
research, but what it all boils down to, Doan, is that you are an
immoral anti social narcissistic danger to society, and we are not.

That is what keeps you here. You have to debate us to maintain your
image, the facade you and your parents created, so that the underside
of the maggoty dead beast of "spanking" won't be seen.

You have about 90% of the population and you STILL can't stop us
because the truth, even to the delusional Doan's, is still the truth.

And slowly but surely and with increasing speed, we are defeating
savage parenting practices.

The Embry's, the Strauss's, and the ASZ's that come to this ng, the
school officials, the legislators, and the young, raised with non-pain
based parenting who will become parents themselves, are taking you
down. It just takes time.

Funny thing too. I notice as more and more take on and accept non-pain
parenting, suddenly those that were once great champions of spanking
and the right of parents to decide, start talking about how wonderful
the new child rearing methods are.

Funny eh? The more we get the more we GET.

Sometimes people are just being argumentative to score points with
other
readers of the NG.


There are occasions. For myself, not matter what my intent may

appear
to be, humorous, or not, my intent is quite serious.

Yup! Kane is the poster boy for the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)


I consider others here far more knowledgeable and skilled than I. I
see wonderful lists of non-punitive parenting methods posted. I see
sharing of new discoveries, and new research by others than me, and I
admire them all.

If I were the poster boy it would be an honor, but I don't need it.
I'm very satisfied with my work so far...more especially with you.

It's almost as gratifying as watching a formerly dangerous teen leave
treatment with a set of morals and ethics and the capacity to
contribute and know right from wrong without any more of those social
misfit survivalist sophistries that you so commonly use.

I always ask myself if I would send the same posting by private

e-mail.
If not, then I don't send it.


I always ask myself, since this isn't my private E-mail, what would

be
most effective in the debate to make my argument. My hope, of

course,
since I'm not Doan who would claim he's just supporting the right

of
the parent to make their own choice whether or not to beat their

child
(and be assured, "beat" is what he and his coterie DO defend
regardless of their protestations otherwise)is that those who are
spanking but looking for a way to stop will be helped to make that
decision.

Right, Kane. Ad-hom attacks are your specialty!


I'm good, yes, but by no means a specialist.

Wassamatta, Can't catch up?

I've never quite figured out the reasoning or morals of those that
just put out a short string of ad hom and don't address the issue
under discussion honestly though. At least once in awhile

It's quite simple, all argument aside.

Spankers risk children's safety, lives, and future.

Yup! But that would make 99%+ of humans worldwide.


Yes, there are rather a lot of damaged children.

They tend to grow up with exaggerated xenophobia of many kinds:
homophobia, misogyny, racial bigotry, and religious exclusivity. It
makes for wars, and for brutality to each other among us humans.

I've not figured out or found a word to describe the fear of one's own
children, but the evidence is clear. Some use methods of parenting
that are illegal against adults. I can't assign a meaning to it but
either sadism or a fear response.

I'm not taken in by the claims of loving their children, and doing
what's best for their children. Perps of domestic violence say the
same. I know THEY believe it, but the evidence is strongly against
those claims being true.

However, if I didn't think they WANTED to love their children, I
wouldn't be here.

Why is then the
non-spanking cultures just don't survive???


If we have to hurt our children to survive does that not put survival
in question as a value?

We deserve to survive, and will survive, when we can learn how to
birth and parent children without deliberate use of pain to control
and "teach" them. And it isn't even hard, unless one is an instinct
only driven animal.

And the evidence is in the events. We AREN'T SURVIVING. We are
destroying the thin skin of the biosphere we can survive in
unassisted. We are killing each other in droves around the planet. We
rape and kill our own children. We murder our spouses. We let our
fellows starve. And we populate to the point of resource exhaustion,
degradation of the food sources, increase in communicable diseases,
with new strains growing and distributed ever faster.

So to answer your question, at this time the non-spanking cultures
(those die with the people...as I've never found a non-spanking
culture that disappeared as such by going to spanking as a parenting
practice) don't survive, possibly, because we the spanking ones
surround them.

You said yourself that we outnumber them. 90+% spank on this planet.

They didn't take the "risk",


So taking the risk of spanking our children will improve the odds of
our survival?

Am I reading you correctly?

I wouldn't, as you do, want to put words or meanings into another's
statement or claim, than they intend.

So:

Is spanking our children likely to improve or diminish the odds for
survival?

Are we, for survival, required to spank our children?

While I deplore that you have once again revealed your character by
diversion from the question, "where is the line between spanking and
abuse" I celebrate that you have introduced a truly important question
to the mix yourself.

What a study that would be. Now if we could get half the planet's
people to be non-spankers (I'd settle for a third before I die...but
won't make it of course) we could have a really objective research
project.

We could find enough non-spankers, and break them down into
categories, punitive alternatives to spanking, non-punitive
alternatives, laizzefaire, etc.

Doan

snip....my what a lot of my claims you chose not to answer...hmmmmm?

Kane
  #2  
Old December 6th 03, 08:11 PM
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default | Kids should work...

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...


On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

We ARE discussing "beating" of children.

Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking" and

if
you can't determing the difference between spanking and beating,
according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking Zealot,

ASZ.

True! Just ask the social science researchers if they their studies

was
on spanking or "beating"


I don't need to ask.

I know! You alredy "greased your butt"! ;-)

They were of neither.

Why?

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither". What logic!

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive terms.

LOL! They are not stupid!

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines" parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear, humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite aware
of the limits of social science studies.

You are wising up! Good!

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical
defenses and arguments.

I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of invectives,
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend there

is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what

"reasonable"
doublt is?


Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them.

What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice.

Absolutely!

The difference between us is that you lack the morals and conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes, that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between "reasonable
force" and "excessive force".

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they would wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Who are they? And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well as DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and spanking.


Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?
And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do you see
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at Sweden
before and after 1979?


It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails on the
incidence of abuse.

Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning spanking?

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT??? And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her on the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop crying so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry, I don't
see the logic, Kane.

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million reports of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate half

are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.


Why would you make such a demand?

Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!

Are you calling all the posters that have posted that here for years
liars? Or are you just unable to read? Our own Plant-life cross-posts
such things and has for years.

Yup! Just as you did now. They, mostly, yapped with no supporting
evidence!

A google on ["child abuse" reports+million] would turn up hundreds of
such postings. If you actually believed it to be untrue you'd have
happily cranked up the actual number yourself and posted it to refute
me.

Google is not the authorative source, Kane. That is the problem with
the Internet. You have to be very careful about the information you
see on the Internet.

Instead you make demands.

I have no right to demand you to back up your claim, Kane?

This wasn't a reasonable request by a reasonable man, it was a school
yard ploy by a child that knows he can't defend his naughty behavior.

You are acting like a child, Kane. You are pulling a "tantrum" so that
you can avoid answering my question. STOP IT!

And what percentage is that of the child
population? 1%, 0.5%, or 0.25%? You tell me, Kane.


I might if you told me the point of your asking?

To see the big-picture!

Clarify.

Already did!

I fail to see the connection to the percentage of children from the
population and my claim that millions of child abuse reports are taken
each year by police and CPS.

Then you are really stupid as you admitted. ;-) You claimed that about
half of them are for spanking. You showed me no data to support such
a claim! Now you are weasling by changing that claim to "millions of
child abuse reports". Are you always this dishonest, Kane?

And finally, before you tell me why, please pose an argument. You may
mark from this day forward I don't respond to demands, even if
seemingly reasonable, if you conceal your premise and or argument.

LOL! Now you are making demands of me when I can't make demands of yout!
You are showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS, Kane. ;-)

Out of context isn't going to work for you...at least not with me. You
have only the they unwary to play with any more, Doan.

You are weaseling, Kane!

We who know you have wearied of your silliness.

Can't argue anymore and have to resort to ad-hom attacks, Kane? ;-)

I have seen my own son covered in bruises, administered by his

mother
and/or
her lover who is a professional martial arts expert.

If they are the legal caregives and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of

abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

The son has "NO defense"!!! The logic of Kane! Needs I say more? ;-)


You didn't bother to read. I'll re-post by cut and paste from above.

Read and rephrase your comment (I see you forgot a ? After the !!!)
for clarity. It makes no sense unless I assume you didn't read and
understand:

LOL!
(Edited for spelling correction)
"
If they are the legal care-givers and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of

abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

"
Notice the "guidelines of abuse statutes in your state?"

Do you read what you write??? Why are saying the son has "no defense"?
ARE THEY CHARGING THE SON WITH A CRIME???

THAT is what these people stand for that you think are just scoring
points, as you say below.

What "people"? Anybody defending child abuse here????


Yes. The Plant. Greegor the Whore, and Doan the Duplicitous. Read on
and it will become clear.

You are lying! I havev'nt seen anyone defending child abuse here.

I, and I know you won't believe it, am NOT, decidedly NOT, scoring
points as an objective. Don't mind getting a laugh now and then,

but I
am deadly serious about putting and end for all time to the

barbaric
practice of punishing children.

Yup! Kane is going to set all the children in juvenile halls FREE!

;-)

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to work to reduce the numbers
going in, and the numbers coming out who have healed from the
brutality of their parents that ended in them being incarcerated.

LOL! And thought you are for "not punishing" children! At first, I
was applauding you for being consistent, now you even lose that!

And I'm going to do it, by influence now...since I'm not personally
engaged in juvenile work any longer....through the people I trained to
use supportive non-pain based methods of therapy.

And keeping them juvenile halls is "non-pain" based????

Children that have been spanked are usually experts as dealing with
and even using aversive techniques. I don't want the to continue to
practice avoidance over development of conscience, nor the more
sophisticated threat and pain on others their parents began
instructing them in.

You still haven't told me what the recidivism rate before and after
you were "involved". ;-)

You can label it "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type BS grunting
noises",

Sure you do, if you have completely run out of argument, logical,
intelligent, fact based argument, for what CANNOT be argued. Doan
knows that and has been playing weasel for years with it.

LOL! I have never called anyone "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type
BS grunting noises"


Then you admit to being part of the crowd I refer to that one member
of did. Did you then disagree with your new butt buddy, Greegor the
Whore?

Oops! More insults from Kane! What a weasel! ;-)

You are known by the company you keep, unfair as that might be. Thank
you.

Childish!

but I have seen Kane called other women "smelly-****"!


Unless you have met the subject of my epitaph, you cannot with
assurance claim I called a
"Women" a "smelly-****." In fact, even if It dresses as a women, says
It's a women, you still can't say with conviction....and I suspect you
don't KNOW It's a women at all, unless you have been down sucking at
that smelly ****.

Losing it, Kane??? Remember that you were once crawled out of a
"smelly-****"! ;-)

I called a poster I refer to as The Plant, and respectfully assign
lovely plant names to, a "smelly ****."

Yup! I see that you always resort to name-calling when you ran out
of anything logical to say. Did your parents taught you that? ;-)

It richly deserved that...though I apologize to any women her for that
sexist choice. But then I did say "smelly." That surely doesn't apply
to all women.

So which women don't have "smelly-****", Kane? Have you asked you mom?
;-)

He thinks putting the responsibility for the actions of the parent

on
the parent, ignoring that without restraints children at taking the
beatings YOUR child is getting, absolves him of any blame.

ABSOLUTELY!


Thank you. Proof of your dysfunctional conscience. The failure, so
often seen in pain parented children, to develop the important
characteristic of human beings, empathy into conscience.

Great logic, Kane! I am to blame for the evils in this world???

I have no responsibility for your child.


Another clear indicator. Humans, being social animals by evolution and
contemporary evidence of their desire to clump into packs...even their
driving habits show it on the freeways.....have by default
responsibility for each other.

I have empathy for other beings and resposibility for others in my
charge but I surely don't have any responsibility for your child!

The only ones that exhibit signs of NOT feeling some responsibility
for other human beings are those that are in that spectrum of
socio-pathology of those that have dysfunctions of conscience, and the
latent empathy that normal humans are born with.

Latent empathy, seen as automatic responses in very young infants
(crying when others cry, etc.) can be developed or it can be retarded
by either neglect to stimulate it, or by suppression of it because of
pain and fear.

The latter two can be naturally occurring, as in a long illness, or
continuous painful stimulation as in war or famine or other stressors,
or by parental handling and treatment of the child.

The latter is the most prevalent in our world.

Doan is an example. Though I cannot say, beyond his admission that he
was pain parented, he said he was spanked by his parents, which
conditions cause the atrophy of his conscience.

If this is true than 99% of all human beings since the beginning of time
has no conscience??? You are being ridiculous!

That is why I am
not telling you or any other parent how to parent!


Which goes to my claim that you lack the capacity, even the
realization of it's existence, of empathy. In =91Society,' including
even the meaning of its name, one DOES have a sense of responsibility
for other members of that group...child or adult humans.

Empathy is difference from responsibilitly, Kane. I can feel sorry for
you but I can not be respsonsible for you!

We can even have it for animals, even for anything in existence. But
to not have it for children?

Huh??? And I thought that I said parents are responsible for their
own children!

Tsk.

This is the same as leaving it up to bank robbers whether or not
killing the customers during a robbery is the best course of

action.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Great logic!


It wasn't an offering of logic. It was a metaphor. Metaphor's do not
require logic to serve their intent. It is to trigger some logical
reasonable response in this case.

Metaphor without logic is called "false analogy". It cann't trigger
some logical response if it is itself illogical!

You didn't get it.

No!

I failed.

No, you just lack logic!

The victims still suffer, and Doan wants you to think he has no
responsibilty morally for that.

Yup, Kane! Robbers kill their victims because of me!!!


You and our conscience and your claims do not belong in the metaphor.
You and your claims and your conscience SHOULD however be in the point
of the metaphor. A sense of social responsibility for children.

It is illogical! How am I resposible for the action of the robbers?

but people who condone that kind of human behaviour will never

get MY respect! He has no worry about that. As you say, he is
a point scorer, not a morally fit person. He doesn't care. That is
the result of spankings he received as a child and cannot bear to
hold his parents responsible for. Kane is talking about
morality! Yikes! ;-)

I presume you wish to continue. Say stop whenever you wish. This is
just a check. My own conscience requires that I be aware of those I
interact with, and the media limits me. I'm accustomed to body
language, nuances in tone of voice, pacing of speech, etc.


And your conscience told you to call other women "smelly-****"???

Words are what we use, so words are what I have to ask for to govern
my participation.

But shouldn't it be used with logic?

He thinks they taught him something.

How do you know that I think, Kane? ;-)


I don't. I do know what you write. I presume you were thinking when
you wrote them. I most likely should have said "claims" rather than
"thinks."

Thank you for the English lesson. Let us hope one day the pupil will
surpass the master.

LOL! And I thought you don't have "superiority" complex!


I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulant 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.


I have been on this newsgroup for a while now.
I know how to deal with them. The more they
post publicly the better it is for others to
see their true character. Sit back an enjoy
the spectacles! :-)

I have not been on this NG much.
Too me it seems that a lot of heated debate here is due to
misunderstanding.

On the contrary. We understand the opponents position very well
indeed. The opponents of ASZs can't define anything about spanking
wihtout weales words, incomprehensible instence on US making the
definition we don't have to make because WE chose NOT to spank
children.

And you are welcome to make your own choice!


I know. And those in my society with a conscience, and the
intelligence and mental development to understand by and use cause and
effect reasoning objectively, are heavily invested in my choice.

You haven't show that here!

They tend to insist on being heard before I have a chance to degrade
society with my abused children.

Why would you abuse your children? Are you sick???

Why do you have a
problem with other people making their own choice?


Because I DO have the capacity for analytical thinking and can apply
it to social and political issues. Spanking is one, hence I'm invested
in that issue. I actually care about how children are prepared for and
enter society. I worked at and trained others that work at one of the
many way-stations that children in pain parenting families stopped at.

And you know their children better than 90%+ of the parents???

I would have rather been unemployed.

But then, long before I had those experiences, from about age 19, I
was acutely aware this world was not a safe place and the people in it
tended to be the most pervasive of dangerous elements. Drop me in a
remote desert or forested mountains and I'll sleep soundly with no
worries. The dangers are predictable and very manageable. Drop me in a
city and I know perfectly well there is considerable unpredictability
from that demographic that have been raised with pain parenting.

IOW, you can't deal with reality. Instead, you "dreamed" of a society
on the top of a Malaysian mountain.. :-)

I had childhood friends that were themselves not well behaved, in this
sense of being dangerous to others. I know how they were parented.
Their judgement is poor, and they lack a developed conscience. I had a
very well developed conscience at 11 or 12.

And you sure showed your conscience here, "nver-spanked" boy! ;--)

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in the
archives they have either described spanking very different and or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they

wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.

I and many people have examined the risks


Citations please.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)

and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better.


Citations please. And try to find some that aren't in Goobldegook.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)

The sources you are most likely are to refer to are focused primarily
on pain ... that is they are still punishment based, simple not direct
CP.

Including "talking to your children"????

Frankly, you'll be pleased to know, I think in many instances they
fail even more than spanking. Both are pointless when dealing with
creatures that want to and are committed to learning.

That's "Goobldegook"! :-)

To use pain parenting one has to be so blind or ignorant they believe
the child doesn't want to learn, just because the child want's to
learn something the parent either doesn't see, or the parent doesn't
want them to learn.

I know. Parents are just stupid right, Kane??? Your parents are so
smart! ;-)

Instead of redirecting and teaching, the use aversion. That is one of
a maxim of pain parenting.

Great theory but is it pragmatic! Where is the proof?

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems 10

times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would use

such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege

removal
are counterproductive."


Interestingly this is yet another of those deceptively worded bits you
are so enamored of. Even a perfunctory scan shows that...or you took
it so out of context the authors can't be understood.

You can do better than the "out of context" argument, Kane! :-)

The only possible way to understand even the bogus claim would be to
rewrite it. I'll do so, with the apparently missing but author hoped
for "understood" words included.

Edit where you disagree, this is an exercise in clarification, not a
debate at this point:


The use of alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial
problems 10 times
more than did non-impulsive physical punishment (with impulsive
physical punishment not accounted for), and the alternative
disciplinary responses predicted child impulsivity 3 times more
strongly.

No one would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out,
and/or privilege removal are counterproductive."

Here is an accounting of the bogus:

- Who is using reasoning, time out, and/privilege removal as being
counterproductive, except me of course? (Not a factor in this
statement) Non spankers use a lot of these aversive punishments, but
not as much as spankers.

NO ONE! So why ban one and not the others? See the logic?

- What "antisocial behaviors" are being tabulated. Are they actual
directed at others words, hits, pinches, throwing, or are they in the
- non compliance and exploratory category, the things children do by
their nature and development? If the former they are serious, if the
latter, it's to laugh....no use of alternative disciplinary responses
or non-impulsive physical punishments need to be use at all. It's a
test of hurt vs non-hurt, not one kind of punishment being more or
less effective than anoter. Or it should be.

And you told me you have read the study. Were you lying or you
have forgotten how it was tabulated?

- What, for goodness sake, is a "non impulsive physical punishment,"
as opposed to an impulsive one? And how could the be testing for the
latter. And who, upon survey when asked, "did you spank after giving
it some thought and deciding on the punishment, or did you just
impulsively spank?" would answer affirmatively to the latter very
often?

Read the study and learn. Please don't argue from ignorance. You
looked foolish that way! :-)

- And I must revisit this strange free floating declarative: "No one
would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or
privilege removal are counterproductive."

Why would THAT be the question? Productivity is the question do they
work? Not, do they keep something from working...counterproductive.

Because that is what the current "child development experts" are
recommending in lieu of spanking! You know, like "quality time"
instead of just spending time with your child.

I'm reminded of my efforts over the years to decipher federal
guidelines relating to the application of federal laws. The laws
themselves are paeans of clarity compared to the gobbled rhetoric of
the guidelines. And the damage is clearly evident in what bureaucrats
can get away with in the applications of the law under such wording.

That would explain CPS. The people on the top get most of the money
and the front line social-workers and children get the scraps!

So with the very strange citation that was for support of your claim
of

"I and many people have examined the risks and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better." What? Not more counterproductive? That
non-impulsive CP was three times better at child impulsivity control?

Yup!

Just how much "impulsivity" (what the hell IS that exactly) do we wish
to control in the child? Or is this the Singapore model?


You have read the study. Why ask me?



That is why I have been asking for years now. Is there any
"peer-reviewed" research that showed that the non-cp alternatives are
any better under the same statistical scrutiny?


The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long
long ago. I love reading it, watching you demand, refusing to make a
simple request of the researcher. He's nice, really he is, but I don't
think you agree with his findings so you are staying as far from them
as possible.

Now you claim you have read the Embry study, yet just days ago, on this
very same newsgroup, you said you have read it. So are you lying now?

And...as usual.....

So show me the details of this Embry study. How many children did
they studied? What methodology did they used? Come on, Kane. Enlighten
me!

You didn't provide a citation that included "the same statistical
scrutiny." You are simply up to the same asinine nonsense as always.
Demands for proof where you provide none yourself.

I did provide the citation: Straus & Mouradian (1998)!

If you ask for statistics to refute your claims the lest you could
provide is some statistically valid studies. There aren't any.


That is why I ask the parents to make up their own mind. It is not
who making the claim, Kane. It is the anti-spanking zealotS like
you that making claims with no proof!


If you are asking for us to match the "statistical scrutiny" of the
proffered citation, don't you think that a bit lower than Strauss?

So now you dish Straus? ;-)

Haven't you ever noticed that I've never cited Strauss for support of
any claim of mine.

Are you sure? If I can provide one, just one, would you admit to the
fact that you are being dishonest? Or would you just weasel, again? :-0

And in the end simply data counting, like abuse data, looking around
you, would provide anybody with "reasonable standards" all the support
they needed to understand the risks of spanking vs the near zero risk
of not.


Then go ahead and convince the Supreme Court and 90%+ of the parents
in the USA to ban spanking??? Are they not "reasonable"???

We can't say, and neither can you, exactly how much the risk
is, but we CAN say they are high.

If you can't say how much, how can you say they are high???
Where is the proof? BTW, even Straus admitted that the risk is LOW!

There ARE broken bones, and minds, out there the result of spanking. I
play the odds. No spanking has very low odds of resulting in injury.


Using that logic, you can say that not discipline your kids at all has
a very low odds of resulting in injury! The question has always been
what is a better "non-cp" alternative and how do we know that it is
better?


I still can't find where anyone injured a child by not spanking them.
Please provide some data on this. A negative is so difficult to prove
that scientist use as an axiom, "You cannot prove a negative."

And you want me to prove a negative??? What logic!

What they HAVE learned to do over the years is avoid the hard
questions. Either they refuse to answer, or debate (they do

anything
but debate when asked to), or they insist we answer our own

questions.

Are you talking about LaVonne? ;-)


Why yes. I'm thinking of her restraint and humoring of you and the
Plantlife. I have no such inhibitions or niceties of delivery. I'm
thinking that your citations and claims just as this one you tried
with me left her incredulous. The sheer gall of anyone to try and palm
off such drivel and defend with such unreasoned claims as yours is an
affront to anyone that can think and is honest.

But my citations are the same one that she produced! I just brought them
out in the open so that everyone can see them. She can't debate me and
instead, has chosen to run! ;-)


But in the final analysis, what drives folks away from you is the
disgust at your continued defense of what is so plainly indefensible.
The nonsense desperate twisting with divergent word choices, the
reliance on fuzzy meanings and word choices that are plainly
indefinable, that citation filled with them, concepts that come out of
no known discipline, social science, medical science, mental
health...it's as though you and your sources are making up a
discipline of madness.

LOL! It is only nonsense to the anti-spanking zealotS. It makes
sense to 90%+ of the parents out there.

A whole segment of the population screaming, "I'd hit my child if I
want to and call it spanking and I'll invent MORE words to
obfuscate...and you can't stop me because the law and some "reasonable
people" protect me."

LOL! We can just declare you as the "Emperor" instead! ;-)
Imagine how better the world would be if the anti-spanking zealotS
are in charge! ;-)

You are witnessing, if you've followed this thread, something of a
thumbnail sketch of what has been going on for years. The same

tired
avoidance and misdirection and frequently instead of answering

asking
stupid unrelated questions.

That would be you, Kane! ;-)


What questions have I not answered that you asked? That is so common
in your posts that great long sections I leave in just so folks can
see all the times you simply ignored, and all the times you've said
things as brilliant as "That would be you, Kane! ;-)" instead of
directly answering the charge or claim made.

Let's start with the details of the Embry study, Kane. You said you
haven't read it and now you said you read it long ago!

So me all those times you haven't misdirected, all those times you
have asked questions that weren't stupid, "Are you talking about
LaVonne? ;-)"

You've no arguments. Just a litany of such garbage.

Only if you are looking into a mirror! ;-)

We don't spank, hence he have no worry about injury to your

children.
The ONLY argment they've ever been able to mount against

non-spanking
is "you can't prove by peer reviewed scientific research that it

works
better than spanking."

And your answer is????


My answer is: And again, garbage.

No one can set up the experiment. It would be immoral and illegal.

Who said anything about an experiment? Being stupid again, Kane.
Studies have been been on spanking and non-cp alternative. There
haven't been any experiment!

So you refuse and deny the studies that are observational and survey
with a claim they aren't scientific on the same standards where the
subject can be destroyed or manipulated painfully.


I said they should be taken with a grain of salt. The children of
teenage, minority, single-mothers are not the same as your children.
You know your children best. You make your own decision on this
subject. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOU?


What they smugly wallow around in is the denial that we don't have

to. They have jails and mental illness on their side to defend
spanking and pain parenting....it abviously works, if you want to
keep those places busy. Just look at Singapore and Sweden. :-)

As I said, "smugly."

What wold I look for, corruption and dictatorial savagery against the
people on the one hand, and less child abuse on the other?

So you prefer to see more abuse??? And just to clarify my point, I am
not claiming any casual link here!

Our children, who they claim are spoiled and are little bundles of

ASB
(anti social behavior) are the criminals and crazies, yet our

children
can't be found in such populations in any statistically significant
numbers, and when one gets down to it, since 90+% of children are
spanked in this country, it's a given, unless they want to prove

that
teh 10% or so unspanked are ten percent of prison and mental healt
facility population.

Lying again, Kane. Did I say anything about your children being

spoiled?

Did I say you did? I said "they."

And who are they???

Is "they" inclusive of only YOU and no one else? I had no idea you
were a plural. Sockpuppetry?


So in a post replying to me, you go off a tangent and posted that which
have nothing to do with me???


Semantic trickery isn't debate. It's a ploy. You are exposed.

It's your ploy not mine! Remember you claimed "juvenile crime-rate"
and NOT "juvenile violent crime rate"????

In this case I suspect we are not all talking about the same kind

of
"beating" of children.

No, actually we are NOT. The language is of child abuse by
"discipline" is kept intentionally vague by them because they know
they cannot defend such practices in concrete measurable terms.

Short
of experiments that were desctructive of the subjects they are up

the
creek.

Then the researchers must be stupid right, Kane?


It's "stupid" not to use test subjects in experiments when it would be
immoral and illegal?

Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-) Who said anything about experiments?

You refuse to accept as valid other studies and methodology Doan. Who
would be the stupid one? Should there be no observational only or
observational non destructive, survey, or even review of the body of
research because those do not meet the standard of medical experiment?

Nope! I said they should be hold to the same standards? If we are
claiming that the "alternatives" are better, then we should subject
the same "alternatives" to the same statistical scrutinies!

Personally I don't think we could get most parents to give up their
children such things and autopsy later.

I know. Parents are just stupid! ;-)

But we note you didn't respond to anything but the last sentence. No
opinion on the other claims I made. You are known, sometimes, Doan, by
the company you don't keep.

I known by who I am! And you certainly don't know who my company are!

Did they study "beating"
and not spanking???


They studied CP. Sadly, they did not accept that some parents will,
with your support and permission, decide for themselves what
reasonable CP is, and manage to injure and or kill their children.

And spanking is not CP??? I gave support and permission for peole
to kill their children??? Since when did I become the emperor?

Now there would be a study. The entire spectrum.

Surely YOU could do it Doan.

How? I am just a simple boy. ;-(

They seem quite willing to continue the risky practice and let the
children be injured by those who lose control and pass the line

into
abuse to preserve THEIR right to whack their children when and how
they see fit, as though it were some medieval right of the manor.

Yup! Parents just don't care about their own kids!!!


Oh, I think you shouldn't make such a statement in the plural. I have
to point out your disreputable use of English once again.

90%+ of the parents!

Back for another English lesson folks. One he won't bother answer
to...but necessary after all:

One has to presume, in the use of the plural that all individuals in
the set have the same characteristics being associated...as in "don't
care about their kids?"

Since that is patently untrue....some parents do care and some don't,
then it is incorrect to assign such a belief to the opponent. I didn't
say, you might not, that all parents didn't care about their kids, as
evidenced by my use of "those who lose control."

That would indicate to most native users, and reasonably literate
users, of the English language that I referred to a subset of parents,
not the whole.

Which introduces the interesting opportunity for a question:

Do you think I meant all parents don't care about their children?
What in my post would lead you to believe that, and if you cannot find
it are you prepared to retract the obviously rhetorical and accusatory
question?


Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-)


Their claims to defend the practice amount to "it's been done for
thousands of years without harm...etc." When they know damn well

it has had great harm. Yup! Parents just don't care about
their children. Parents are just there to harm their kids!!! Great
logic, Kane! ;-)

In the matter of logic I just blushed for you.

Oh, I am touched! :-)

In the matter of honesty pertaining to you, I just flushed.

You meant just as I flushed the stuff that come from your mouth?

In the matter of conscience and decency pertaining to you, I just
sighed.

:-(

For you see, Doan, not a soul here, not even your Tree, or your Whore,
could support that you don't know that SOME parents, that very
population that overshoots the mark on spanking and other harm to
children, DON'T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN SUFFICIENTLY NOT TO HARM THEM.

But that is you claim! You used the small percentage of parents who
abused their kids and generalized to all parents who spanked.

So "no," not all parents. And "yes," some parents. That has to be true
with rare exception when using plurals to distinguish as large a
demographic as "parents."

or spanking "parents".

Or do you really want to defend a claim (if you are making it) that
ALL parents love their children?

That is not what I claimed. But I can say with confident that ALL, except
a few, love their children! But that would lead to your problem of
calling ALL spankings as abuse. For if ALL spankings are abuse then
ALL spanking parents are abusers! Your call. :-)

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters of

harm
or not have been harmed by their own received spankings as

children.

AND KANE RECEIVED NO SPANKINGS AND LOOK HOW A "NEVER-SPANKED" KID

LIKE
KANE TURNED OUT!!! :-)


On what evidence do you base your claim I received no spankings as a
child? I had many people parent me. I've said so. When asked I
honestly answered that my parents never spanked me.

Semantic and weaseling again. So here is your chance to make it clear.
Were you or were you not spanked as a child?

You have a problem with plurals and singulars and the understanding of
them, do you not?

I've never said if anyone else spanked me or not. And frankly, other
than your use of something to harass with, the information is of no
use to you. So, no deal.

Cop out!

So, how have I turned out?

From=20what I see on this newsgroup, very bad!

Well....

I have a peace of mind and comfort I didn't know could come with so
much work of the kind I did. And it's with some pride I say that I
managed to not burn out as others did along the way.

I am your worst nightmare, Doan.

Actually, you are what I look forward to in this newsgroup - anti-spanking
zealotS who cannot argue coherently and resort to invectives and name
callings when cornered. Life is fun! ;-)

And there are many more just like me. Many are parents that got the
message themselves, or professionals that came to it through study and
research, but what it all boils down to, Doan, is that you are an
immoral anti social narcissistic danger to society, and we are not.

I heard that from the bible-thumping nuts on campus too. We are going
to hell! Must I repent now? ;-)

That is what keeps you here. You have to debate us to maintain your
image, the facade you and your parents created, so that the underside
of the maggoty dead beast of "spanking" won't be seen.

Is that ALL spankings or just SOME? ;-)

You have about 90% of the population and you STILL can't stop us
because the truth, even to the delusional Doan's, is still the truth.

Yup! The truth according to the anti-spanking zealotS! Who need proof!
;-)

And slowly but surely and with increasing speed, we are defeating
savage parenting practices.

Fight on! ;-)

The Embry's, the Strauss's, and the ASZ's that come to this ng, the
school officials, the legislators, and the young, raised with non-pain
based parenting who will become parents themselves, are taking you
down. It just takes time.

Unfortunately, time is what you don't have. My bet is your body will be
food for maggots before then. :-0

Funny thing too. I notice as more and more take on and accept non-pain
parenting, suddenly those that were once great champions of spanking
and the right of parents to decide, start talking about how wonderful
the new child rearing methods are.

Fads come and go. It took communism 70 years to collapse. I believe
anti-spanking zealotry will take about the same. Some, however, will
survive and hang on to the mystical "dream" land on top of a Malaysian
mountian. :-)

Funny eh? The more we get the more we GET.

It's hysterical!

Sometimes people are just being argumentative to score points with
other
readers of the NG.

There are occasions. For myself, not matter what my intent may

appear
to be, humorous, or not, my intent is quite serious.

Yup! Kane is the poster boy for the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)


I consider others here far more knowledgeable and skilled than I. I
see wonderful lists of non-punitive parenting methods posted. I see
sharing of new discoveries, and new research by others than me, and I
admire them all.

LOL!

If I were the poster boy it would be an honor, but I don't need it.
I'm very satisfied with my work so far...more especially with you.

And I do enjoy your "company"! ;-)

It's almost as gratifying as watching a formerly dangerous teen leave
treatment with a set of morals and ethics and the capacity to
contribute and know right from wrong without any more of those social
misfit survivalist sophistries that you so commonly use.

LOL! You are God's gift to trouble-teens. Pat yourself on the back, Kane!
;-)

I always ask myself if I would send the same posting by private
e-mail.
If not, then I don't send it.

I always ask myself, since this isn't my private E-mail, what would

be
most effective in the debate to make my argument. My hope, of

course,
since I'm not Doan who would claim he's just supporting the right

of
the parent to make their own choice whether or not to beat their

child
(and be assured, "beat" is what he and his coterie DO defend
regardless of their protestations otherwise)is that those who are
spanking but looking for a way to stop will be helped to make that
decision.

Right, Kane. Ad-hom attacks are your specialty!


I'm good, yes, but by no means a specialist.

And it showed! ;-)

Wassamatta, Can't catch up?

I am trying! ;-)

I've never quite figured out the reasoning or morals of those that
just put out a short string of ad hom and don't address the issue
under discussion honestly though. At least once in awhile

LOL! Self-criticism now, Kane?

It's quite simple, all argument aside.

Spankers risk children's safety, lives, and future.

Yup! But that would make 99%+ of humans worldwide.


Yes, there are rather a lot of damaged children.

They tend to grow up with exaggerated xenophobia of many kinds:
homophobia, misogyny, racial bigotry, and religious exclusivity. It
makes for wars, and for brutality to each other among us humans.

Yup! They just don't believe in the "dream" land!

I've not figured out or found a word to describe the fear of one's own
children, but the evidence is clear. Some use methods of parenting
that are illegal against adults. I can't assign a meaning to it but
either sadism or a fear response.

I didn't know "adults" need parenting, Kane. Must be my bad English. :-0

I'm not taken in by the claims of loving their children, and doing
what's best for their children. Perps of domestic violence say the
same. I know THEY believe it, but the evidence is strongly against
those claims being true.

Generalizing again, Kane. :-)

However, if I didn't think they WANTED to love their children, I
wouldn't be here.

You are so altruistic! ;-)

Why is then the
non-spanking cultures just don't survive???


If we have to hurt our children to survive does that not put survival
in question as a value?

Nope! Without survival, everything else is overated! Our forefathers
said it best: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

We deserve to survive, and will survive, when we can learn how to
birth and parent children without deliberate use of pain to control
and "teach" them. And it isn't even hard, unless one is an instinct
only driven animal.

We are human beings. We have to be pragmatic. We have to use our
brain to make the best decision. We can just bow down and let
the "experts" do the thinking for us.

And the evidence is in the events. We AREN'T SURVIVING. We are
destroying the thin skin of the biosphere we can survive in
unassisted. We are killing each other in droves around the planet. We
rape and kill our own children. We murder our spouses. We let our
fellows starve. And we populate to the point of resource exhaustion,
degradation of the food sources, increase in communicable diseases,
with new strains growing and distributed ever faster.

We are surving despite what the chicken-little of the world is telling us.

So to answer your question, at this time the non-spanking cultures
(those die with the people...as I've never found a non-spanking
culture that disappeared as such by going to spanking as a parenting
practice) don't survive, possibly, because we the spanking ones
surround them.

You said yourself that we outnumber them. 90+% spank on this planet.

So spanking cultures are better adapted.

They didn't take the "risk",


So taking the risk of spanking our children will improve the odds of
our survival?

If we were to follow the logic of your "observation" based research!

Am I reading you correctly?

Yup!

I wouldn't, as you do, want to put words or meanings into another's
statement or claim, than they intend.

So:

Is spanking our children likely to improve or diminish the odds for
survival?

Are we, for survival, required to spank our children?

While I deplore that you have once again revealed your character by
diversion from the question, "where is the line between spanking and
abuse" I celebrate that you have introduced a truly important question
to the mix yourself.

What a study that would be. Now if we could get half the planet's
people to be non-spankers (I'd settle for a third before I die...but
won't make it of course) we could have a really objective research
project.

We could find enough non-spankers, and break them down into
categories, punitive alternatives to spanking, non-punitive
alternatives, laizzefaire, etc.

We only have to look at cultures that survived! ;-)

Doan

snip....my what a lot of my claims you chose not to answer...hmmmmm?

Kane


Flushed! ;-)

Doan

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| And again he barks........ Kane barks ...... again! was Kids should work... Kane General 9 December 9th 03 06:08 AM
Kids should work !!! Kane General 57 December 3rd 03 06:17 AM
bobbaloo was Kids should work... Kane General 0 November 24th 03 12:40 AM
Which work for kids? Llort Agig General 0 November 22nd 03 01:51 AM
FWD bad judgement or abuse Trunk kids begged to ride Kane General 2 August 5th 03 05:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.