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 » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Would you spank in this situation?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old September 11th 06, 09:12 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Would you spank in this situation?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)
Citation.

Ask Dorothy! She is on your side.
Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are.

Afraid she would embarass you? ;-)
No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem
unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing
again?

Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being
harassed?


Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that
your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates.

You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being
harassed, STUPID! ;-)

Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy.

Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-)

How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with
Dr. Embry?

She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study.
That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said
he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy.

Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did?


Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I
believe, it did not turn up on a search.

Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right?

How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report?
I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me.

It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open
your mouth to made a FALSE claim.

Nor stupid.

But you are STUPID! ;-)

I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work
since.

Hihihi!

YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of
spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to
contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead.

More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out
of a copy, remembered? ;-)

0:-

I don't have a 'side.'
Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither!
Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:-

Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-)


Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid?

No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember
Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-)

0:-


Doan

Keep lying, stupid.

Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the
argument!
"You don't have a brain neither!"

You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study,
and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a
real mail box number, little boy.

More lies!


Nope.

Yes!

Doan
... alias Alina.

And a liar.

The only liar here is YOU!


Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:-

You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why
don't you?

Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still
around? You haven't answered either question.

I don't know.

Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and
wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much.


Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were
so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"!


She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern.

Hahaha! What a proud mom!


Doan


How's your conscience, child?

Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-)

Doan

  #122  
Old September 12th 06, 02:33 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Would you spank in this situation?

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)
Citation.

Ask Dorothy! She is on your side.
Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are.

Afraid she would embarass you? ;-)
No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem
unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing
again?

Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being
harassed?

Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that
your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates.

You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being
harassed, STUPID! ;-)


My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are
attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when
I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't
split hairs, liar.

Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy.

Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-)


I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar.

How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with
Dr. Embry?

She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study.
That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said
he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy.

Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did?

Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I
believe, it did not turn up on a search.

Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right?


We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You
refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search
yourself?

How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report?
I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me.

It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open
your mouth to made a FALSE claim.


None made. You are lying again.

Nor stupid.

But you are STUPID! ;-)

I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work
since.

Hihihi!

YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of
spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to
contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead.

More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out
of a copy, remembered? ;-)


Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar.

0:-

I don't have a 'side.'
Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither!
Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:-

Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-)

Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid?

No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember
Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-)


On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan
campaigns, not spanking.

See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even
believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you.

0:-

Doan

Keep lying, stupid.

Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the
argument!
"You don't have a brain neither!"

You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study,
and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a
real mail box number, little boy.

More lies!

Nope.

Yes!


Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets
the picture easily enough.

Doan
... alias Alina.

And a liar.

The only liar here is YOU!

Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:-

You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why
don't you?


I did.

Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still
around? You haven't answered either question.

I don't know.


Well ask, stupid.

Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and
wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much.

Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were
so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"!

She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern.

Hahaha! What a proud mom!


Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you.

Doan

How's your conscience, child?

Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-)


You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't
lying when you are.


Doan


Hihihi.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #123  
Old September 12th 06, 03:24 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default Would you spank in this situation?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)
Citation.

Ask Dorothy! She is on your side.
Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are.

Afraid she would embarass you? ;-)
No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem
unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing
again?

Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being
harassed?
Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that
your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates.

You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being
harassed, STUPID! ;-)


My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are
attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when
I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't
split hairs, liar.

Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Since you don't feel harassed,
I am harassing you, STUPID! My purpose is not to harass you. My purpose
is to expose your lies and STUPIDITY! Got it, LIAR! ;-)

Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy.

Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-)


I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar.

Now, why would I do your work for you, STUPID LIAR? ;-)

How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with
Dr. Embry?

She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study.
That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said
he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy.

Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did?
Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I
believe, it did not turn up on a search.

Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right?


We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You
refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search
yourself?

Hahaha! Anyone except you could have found it. You have proven your
stupidity by not being able to find it and then have the nerve to say
that it can only be gotten from somewhere else. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
;-)

How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report?
I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me.

It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open
your mouth to made a FALSE claim.


None made. You are lying again.

You were the one that said it can only be gotten from the author, LIAR!

Nor stupid.

But you are STUPID! ;-)


No response so I take it that you admit to being STUPID!


I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work
since.

Hihihi!

YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of
spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to
contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead.

More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out
of a copy, remembered? ;-)


Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar.

Hahaha! Then why did you sent her a copy? You are too stupid to even
make such a stupid lie! ;-)

0:-

I don't have a 'side.'
Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither!
Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:-

Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-)
Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid?

No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember
Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-)


On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan
campaigns, not spanking.

Look it up, STUPID! Prove that it was about Iraq and Afghanistan. I DARE
YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even
believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you.

Prove it! Show me the evidence or SHUT UP, STUPID! ;-)

0:-

Doan

Keep lying, stupid.

Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the
argument!
"You don't have a brain neither!"

You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study,
and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a
real mail box number, little boy.

More lies!
Nope.

Yes!


Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets
the picture easily enough.

Hihihi! They got the picture of your lies which I exposed alright!

Doan
... alias Alina.

And a liar.

The only liar here is YOU!
Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:-

You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why
don't you?


I did.

Hihihi! Then why don't you get back here?

Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still
around? You haven't answered either question.

I don't know.


Well ask, stupid.

Why should I, stupid?

Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and
wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much.

Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were
so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"!
She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern.

Hahaha! What a proud mom!


Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you.

Hihihi! You obviously don't know what is moral and ethical.

Doan

How's your conscience, child?

Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-)


You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't
lying when you are.

That would be you, STUPID! ;-)


Doan


Hihihi.

Hahaha! ;-)

AF

  #124  
Old September 12th 06, 03:51 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Would you spank in this situation?

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:

wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
0:- wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, 0:- wrote:
I have no delusions. I utilize authoritative research, and often quote
it in this newsgroup.

You meant LIES! Remember the Embry Study, Kane? ;-)
Sure I do. You lied through your teeth for about two years.

The PROVEN liar is YOU! It was YOU who said that the study can only be
gotten from Dr. Embry himself.
Would it be a lie if he himself told me that when I inquired?
A simple google search, as Dorothy did, has proven that to be false!
;-)
Citation.

Ask Dorothy! She is on your side.
Dorothy isn't making the claim. You are.

Afraid she would embarass you? ;-)
No. I'm not embarrassed by being corrected, if that's the case. You seem
unable to get to the point. Could it mean you think you are harassing
again?

Hahaha! I don't want to harass you. Do you feel that you are being
harassed?
Not in the least. But you are lying again, as YOU have posted that
your intent here is to badger and harass anti spanking advocates.

You and your stupid LIES again! Even you don't feel that you are being
harassed, STUPID! ;-)

My not feeling harassed is not predicated on whether or not you are
attempting to do so, stupid. You have stated as your purpose here, when
I challenged your stupid arguments, that you were here to harass. Don't
split hairs, liar.

Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Since you don't feel harassed,
I am harassing you, STUPID! My purpose is not to harass you. My purpose
is to expose your lies and STUPIDITY! Got it, LIAR! ;-)

Want to see your posts? Do a search on your own posts, dummy.

Demonstrating you "formidable research skill" again? ;-)

I did not say I would. I asked you to. Liar.

Now, why would I do your work for you, STUPID LIAR? ;-)

How could Dorothy prove or disprove a conversation I had privately with
Dr. Embry?

She did a search herself and found where she can get a copy of the study.
That's nice. It doesn't disprove my comment. That Dr. Embry himself said
he didn't think there were any available and would and did send me a copy.

Hahaha! So you are too stupid to a simple search, as Dorothy did?
Nope. I went to the source because at the time, three years ago now, I
believe, it did not turn up on a search.

Hahaha! You were too stupid to do a simple search right?

We don't know that anyone could have found it three years ago. You
refused to prove you had it back then. Too stupid to do a simple search
yourself?

Hahaha! Anyone except you could have found it. You have proven your
stupidity by not being able to find it and then have the nerve to say
that it can only be gotten from somewhere else. STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!
;-)

How is it stupid to contact the researcher and ask for the study report?
I do it rather often, so it's not unusual to me.

It's not stupid to contact the researcher but it is very STUPID to open
your mouth to made a FALSE claim.

None made. You are lying again.

You were the one that said it can only be gotten from the author, LIAR!

Nor stupid.

But you are STUPID! ;-)


No response so I take it that you admit to being STUPID!

I enjoyed talking with him about the impact this study had on his work
since.

Hihihi!

YOU, on the other hand, with your claimed "neutrality" on the issue of
spanking and "let them make up their own mind," were too chicken **** to
contact him yourself and lied about having the study instead.

More lies! I were relying on Alina and beccafromlalaland to con you out
of a copy, remembered? ;-)

Nope, just you socking as Alana, liar.

Hahaha! Then why did you sent her a copy? You are too stupid to even
make such a stupid lie! ;-)

0:-

I don't have a 'side.'
Hihihi! You don't have a brain neither!
Seems to be adequate to deal with you. 0:-

Hihihi! That what a stupid person would say! ;-)
Are you calling the people reading our posts stupid?

No! Just you! Other people are smart and they see through you. Remember
Chris? Eve him thinks you are STUPID! ;-)

On what issue, Doan? He and I disagreed about the Iraq and Afghanistan
campaigns, not spanking.

Look it up, STUPID! Prove that it was about Iraq and Afghanistan. I DARE
YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)


And do your work for you? R R R R R R


See how easily you lie. Nothing to it for you. I suspect you even
believe yourself, even when the evidence is presented directly to you.

Prove it! Show me the evidence or SHUT UP, STUPID! ;-)


Nope. Nope. Nope.

Clear enough for you, stupid?

0:-

Doan

Keep lying, stupid.

Hahaha! Resorting to adhom again. A sure side that you have lost the
argument!
"You don't have a brain neither!"

You lost this argument long ago when YOU lied about having the study,
and created a sock to try and get it from me. You should have given me a
real mail box number, little boy.

More lies!
Nope.

Yes!

Nope. Anyone reading your long refusal to debate the Embry study gets
the picture easily enough.

Hihihi! They got the picture of your lies which I exposed alright!


Not if they can read and think for themselves.

Doan
... alias Alina.

And a liar.

The only liar here is YOU!
Contact Alina and get her back here to defend you. 0:-

You claimed to have her address and sent her a copy of the study. Why
don't you?

I did.

Hihihi! Then why don't you get back here?


Mmm...more brilliance? Go take a class in simple expository writing,
Doan. You might be able to lie more convincingly.

What IS that sentence supposed to mean?

Is Sister Aline still living? And is the post doctoral lady, Alina still
around? You haven't answered either question.

I don't know.

Well ask, stupid.

Why should I, stupid?


Out of love and concern.

Your parents would cringe with shame to see what you have become, and
wonder if they spanked you enough. Or too much.

Hihihi! And you are a perfect "never-spanked" boy! Your mother were
so proud of you that she even approved you calling other a "smelly-****"!
She sure did after reading the vicious child hating posts of Fern.

Hahaha! What a proud mom!

Yep. Moral and ethical, unlike Fern and you.

Hihihi! You obviously don't know what is moral and ethical.


You consider it moral and ethical, as Fern did, to champion the beating
of children, using objects, in church on their naked bodies then.

Okay, have it your way, Doan. 0:-

Doan

How's your conscience, child?

Clear. I don't have to resort to LIES like you! ;-)

You mean you have to convince yourself delusionally that you aren't
lying when you are.

That would be you, STUPID! ;-)


Nope. I got the right person, Doan the Screeching Hysterical Dancing
Monkeyboy.

Doan

Hihihi.

Hahaha! ;-)

AF


Yep. Lying all the way Doan, and even your laughter is hollow.

You know how immoral you are. And you reveal it in each post.

0:-




--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #125  
Old September 13th 06, 02:06 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Would you spank in this situation?

Doug wrote:
Doug, You place a great deal of emphasis on the
genetic predisposition to alcoholism.

Aren't those predisposed a MINORITY and for the
MAJORITY wouldn't SOCIAL factors such as
PEER PRESSURE be the main issue?


Hi, Greg,

Alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. All domains are involved, but
the biological, genetic component is a big part of the picture.

And yes, those predisposed to alcoholism represent a decided minority of the
population -- 10%.

Apparently my parents, siblings and I are all not
predisposed to alcoholism, so our biggest
vulnerability was SOCIAL rather than genetic predisposition.

My parents almost never drink and DEMYSTIFIED
liquor for us, teaching moderation.


In your case, it appears that both the biological and social components were
non-alcoholic. Since your parents almost never drank and demonstrated
moderation when they did so, the social domain you were subjected to was one
of moderation.

When I went to college, I was strongly pressured
SOCIALLY to drink liquor, but I was NOT INTERESTED.
In other one on one situations like dating I did
drink minimally for SOCIAL reasons.


Many non-alcoholic people are pressured by peers in college and succumb to
the pressure through binge drinking, etc. It is a common ritual at that
age. However, laking the other components to the disease of alcoholism,
these folks stop drinking in this way when they leave college. These young
people are certainly using alcohol irresponsibly and, at that time, may be
diagnosed as substance abusers, but they are not chemically dependent. An
alcoholic, on the other hand, is dependent on the drug.

I should have made the distinction between chemical abuse and chemical
dependency in my initial post. I apologize for the resulting confusion. My
post concentrated on alcoholism, which involves those who are chemically
dependent upon the drug.

I do not drink liquor at all.
I also don't smoke or do any drugs.


Alcohol effects those who are predisposed to alcoholism in an entirely
different way. They are a different reaction to the drug from the onset.
To them, it goes "BOOM." To those who are not predisposed, it goes "tinkle,
tinkle."

Apparently we disagree about the importance of the
SOCIAL and peer pressure aspects of liquor consumption.


Perhaps. It is more likely we were talking about two different things.
Peer pressure and other elements in the social domain are a big player in
liquor consumption. I agree with your views in this respect. But for the
user to become dependent upon the drug, there are usually contributors from
the biological and psychological domains.

While I must comply with the law, I lament that
parents are no longer allowed to DEMYSTIFY liquor
or teach moderation in this way.


My point was that children learn moderation by observing how their parents
drink. This would certainly be influence in the social domain and very
powerful.


Which of course was my argument and makes the argument of others here
pointlessly misleading.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22
http://tinyurl.com/ltvvn

Apparently some French parents aren't demonstrating sufficiently.






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #126  
Old September 13th 06, 06:09 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Sweden ... was ... Would you spank in this situation?

BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden during 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an
increased number of police reports on physical child abuse.



Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound
evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper
explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has
reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much
needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this
search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best
study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in
the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average
rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By
comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that
the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the
1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a
489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well
as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article
discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and
calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce
societal abuse and violence.

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden.html



  #127  
Old September 13th 06, 04:54 PM posted to alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default Sweden ... was ... Would you spank in this situation?

Doug wrote:
BACKGROUND: This study aims at investigating physical child abuse in
Sweden during 1986-1996, a period when alarm was being raised about an
increased number of police reports on physical child abuse.



Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little sound
evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This paper
explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment has
reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as a much
needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly, this
search located only five published studies with any relevant data. The best
study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden than in
the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the average
rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and 1985. By
comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981 found that
the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and the
1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data indicate a
489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as well
as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors. The article
discusses possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and
calls for better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce
societal abuse and violence.

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden.html


Can't remember how many times this pap has been referred to in
alt.parenting.spanking, and how many times I've posted Durrant's
brilliant rebuttal.

Robert E. Larzelere is notorious as one of the most articulate purveyors
of the spankers dream-state. That there is no harm in spanking.

Have you read Durrant's rebuttal?

You really must.

Sweden, as I believe I posted recently, has a very difficult system of
child abuse reporting, and very different than the U.S.

Let's look at the Lyons-Larzelere logic shall we?

Here is what the cited report you offer says: "Further, hardly any of
the soundest studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with
corporal punishment."

While the above suggest MANY studies (oh, the clever language of the
propagandist) they in fact state earlier, "Surprisingly, this search
located only five published studies with any relevant data."

What would "hardly any" if even ONE out of five showed something very
different and DID find such associations of detrimental outcomes?

It would mean, Doug, for the honest, that the percentage of disagreement
deserves closer inspection. And some thoughtful speculation that the
spanking proponents choices were just a tad cherry picked, possibly. 0:-

What is even MORE remarkably phony and laughable, is that THIS paper by
Lyons and Larzerele does a considerable bit of SELF CITATION from
earlier work.

Were THOSE some of the five research studies they considered? R R R R R

Then we come to this gem (and now we are suddenly considering over a
dozen studies, yet they began with only FIVE being credible to their was
of thinking, tsk:

"Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only 1 of those 3 made
any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of corporal punishment."

Mmmm....and who will decide what is and is not abusive when it comes to
hitting children?

There IS no clear definition anywhere in the world. The very nature of
the act of striking someone is so ripe with potential, both physical and
psychological, that no such set of criteria can be formulated.

I've seen a few efforts but they've all been either sloppy pieces of
self deluding crap, or clever but vacuum filled chamber pots, if you get
my drift.

Even the same child would experience a hit one day as different than one
another day under different circumstances.

Harm, detriment, is a very foggy term. Poorly defined even in the
fields that study such things more closely, such as medical research or
psychological research.

They can tell afterward, somewhat, but they cannot reliable predict what
the outcome of any particular hit might be.

That's why you'll see advocates for an end to spanking focusing so much
on OUTCOMES that have taken place rather than so much on predictions of
what might occur.

When we speak of the detrimental outcomes for children such as adults
that have a higher incidence of mental health problems, such as
depression, and issues such as addiction, we are counting ADULTS THAT
ARE REPORTING and reveal they were spanked as children.

Here's the Durrant rebuttal. YOU won't be able to see, most likely, the
exposure of the less than complete veracity of L and L, but most others
will.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/hu...n%20Sweden.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/gu74s

.... Foreword
The Christian Institute and Families First have published a booklet
written by Robert Larzelere, University of Nebraska Medical Center. The
publishers claim that this booklet presents a “devastating critique” of
my research on Sweden’s corporal punishment ban.

Throughout the booklet, Larzelere accuses me of bias, claims that my
conclusions contradict the evidence, and implies that my research is
based more on “good intentions” than on rigorous analysis. This attack
on my research goes beyond the level of academic debate and warrants
a full response. The purpose of this document is to provide that response.

Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D.
University of Manitoba ...

I would not want to be Mr. Larzerele.

He also attempted to rebut this response, but his fumbling and bull****
were made more than evident by himself.

I even had a thought pass through my mind as I read his bull**** that he
might have been using YOU as a consultant. R R R R R R R

Very much the same kind of fogging language and distracting from the
issues.

Kane

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
  #128  
Old September 19th 06, 04:36 AM posted to alt.parenting.spanking
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Would you spank in this situation?


wrote:
I would punish as you did. I would not spank.


That is your decision to make.

AF

 




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
adoption/surrogacy situation, bf after hysterectomy? dkhedmo Breastfeeding 5 May 21st 06 03:14 AM
Need Comments on Situation WiseSarah Child Support 0 July 4th 04 01:33 PM
Christian History Corner: To Spank or Not to Spank? billy f Spanking 0 June 28th 04 07:54 AM
| And again he barks........ Kane barks ...... again! was Kids should work... Kane General 9 December 9th 03 07:08 AM
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... Kane General 2 December 6th 03 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.