| Kids should work

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

He thinks they taught him something.


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 petulent 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters of harm
or not have been harmed by their own recieved spankings as children.

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.

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.

It's quite simple, all argument aside.

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

What do you think non-spankers, who still must parent and teach, are
risking in the way of the childrens lives, safety, and futures?

Regarding administering pain as a general principle for enforcing
your
authority:
Would you rather your kids comply because they fear you, or because
they
agree with you about what is wrong and what is right.

They will deny their children fear them or the punishment, and by some
magical feat can shift from an aversive response to an adoption of
moral and ethical behaviors and intent at some point in the future.

Not that I would deny the possibility...many people do struggle
through the cellular memory of fear, and sort it out, but many, as the
jails attest to, do not.

IMHO if fear is the motivator, then they will offend the moment your
back is
turned and have no respect for authority.

Actually there will be, always, a conditioned responsive reflexive
jerk of one kind or another. Over or undercompensation usually...that
the parent, we hope long dead,(that often frees the victim..the death
of his oppressor) could deny it has anything to do with the deliberate
fear they instilled in the child.

If consent is the motivator they will have self discipline.

Their argument is that they aren't going to risk their child getting
hurt by NOT training them aversively to avoid environmental dangers,
though it does make me laugh (and make me sad) that we are talking
about people that have been known to slap a child for talking back.

Yes, it certainly can teach a child to avoid the danger in their
environment...that evey lovin' parent.

Now what exactly is YOUR point of view ?

You are going to be treated to the usual. Doan doesn't support
spanking, just the right of the parent to decide.

Service to what on the surface appears "correct" and defensible is the
hallmark of the ethically challenged child who has not developed a
conscience. And that is often the result of ... hell, it's always the
result of pareting based on aversive punishments to discipline.

I've have seen such people, with still a spark left in them, as most
humans have, upon being trained in empathy, break down in the middle
of simple practice exercises, when what empty feels like strikes them.

Finding out what normal human response has been suppressed in them,
unexperienced by them, and the richness of feeling more fully human of
course overwhelms them for a time.

You are conversing with the product of the risk of spanking ASZs
aren't willing to take. Of course they are going to defend spanking
and claim the risk is easily managed.

Yet as them to show you how, and it's back to pompous pronouncements
of vague undefinable nonsense they claim YOU don't understand and they
DO.

Kane

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"

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?

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

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????

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! ;-)

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

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! I have no responsibility for your child. That is why I am
not telling you or any other parent how to parent!

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!

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!!!

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! ;-)

He thinks they taught him something.

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


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

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

"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."

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?

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? ;-)

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! ;-)

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????

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. :-)

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?

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

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!!!

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! ;-)

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters of harm
or not have been harmed by their own recieved spankings as children.

AND KANE RECEIVED NO SPANKINGS AND LOOK HOW A "NEVER-SPANKED" KID LIKE
KANE TURNED OUT!!! :-)


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 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!

It's quite simple, all argument aside.

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

Yup! But that would make 99%+ of humans worldwide. Why is then the
non-spanking cultures just don't survive??? They didn't take the "risk",
Kane!

Doan

What do you think non-spankers, who still must parent and teach, are
risking in the way of the childrens lives, safety, and futures?

Regarding administering pain as a general principle for enforcing
your
authority:
Would you rather your kids comply because they fear you, or because
they
agree with you about what is wrong and what is right.

They will deny their children fear them or the punishment, and by some
magical feat can shift from an aversive response to an adoption of
moral and ethical behaviors and intent at some point in the future.

Not that I would deny the possibility...many people do struggle
through the cellular memory of fear, and sort it out, but many, as the
jails attest to, do not.

IMHO if fear is the motivator, then they will offend the moment your
back is
turned and have no respect for authority.

Actually there will be, always, a conditioned responsive reflexive
jerk of one kind or another. Over or undercompensation usually...that
the parent, we hope long dead,(that often frees the victim..the death
of his oppressor) could deny it has anything to do with the deliberate
fear they instilled in the child.

If consent is the motivator they will have self discipline.

Their argument is that they aren't going to risk their child getting
hurt by NOT training them aversively to avoid environmental dangers,
though it does make me laugh (and make me sad) that we are talking
about people that have been known to slap a child for talking back.

Yes, it certainly can teach a child to avoid the danger in their
environment...that evey lovin' parent.

Now what exactly is YOUR point of view ?

You are going to be treated to the usual. Doan doesn't support
spanking, just the right of the parent to decide.

Service to what on the surface appears "correct" and defensible is the
hallmark of the ethically challenged child who has not developed a
conscience. And that is often the result of ... hell, it's always the
result of pareting based on aversive punishments to discipline.

I've have seen such people, with still a spark left in them, as most
humans have, upon being trained in empathy, break down in the middle
of simple practice exercises, when what empty feels like strikes them.

Finding out what normal human response has been suppressed in them,
unexperienced by them, and the richness of feeling more fully human of
course overwhelms them for a time.

You are conversing with the product of the risk of spanking ASZs
aren't willing to take. Of course they are going to defend spanking
and claim the risk is easily managed.

Yet as them to show you how, and it's back to pompous pronouncements
of vague undefinable nonsense they claim YOU don't understand and they
DO.

Kane