Suppose we Outlawed Punishment?

SNIP
---------------------------
Shoot them through the head. Works for me.
Steve

Have you actually shot anyone?
----------------------------------
Now, did *I* say that?



You said that it works for you.


How is it that you remain out of jail?
--------------------------------------
How do YOU DARE even imagine that I have to???


I was being silly.

Steve

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:12:29 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 19 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:47:32 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 19 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:19:53 -0400, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

R. Steve Walz would have us believe that if we just forced
parents to
stop
using punishment, our world would turn into a paradise in
which
all
children
are treated well. But is that what would really happen?
-------------
Yes, if enforced harshly. Worked in Sweden!
Actually it was NOT enforced harshly in Sweden at all.. The
statute
had NO penalties involved and was to make it legally possible to
provid training and support for non-cp methods.

Come on, Kane. You stupid piece of ****! Steve said it so, so it
must
be so. :-)

He is mistaken. If I know him he is perfectly willing to admit a
mistake when he makes one. He just doesn't, usually.

LOL! He is a REAL GENTELMAN! ;-)

I've no idea. He certainly beats the hell out of you for honesty.

And why am I a stupid piece of **** for posting exactly how the
Swedish model was put in place?

Because Steve's mouth is full of "****"! :-)

Now there's a nice boy who learned how to debate from his parents who
spanked him.

The "bad adult" argument was used there too,
they still passed the law and it STILL WORKED!

And it was based on a concent of social consciousness, not
punishment.
And you are right, it did work. And as more time passes the
effects
are escalating. Other countries passed similar laws and have had
the
same kind of results...lowering youth crime rates and crimes
against
children. Remarkable.

Bad adults can be scared out of criminality.
What a concept!!


Unfortunately, not all bad behavior is criminal. Should we
legislate
all
aspects of human interaction until we are naught but
automotons?

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. What IS it about spanking that blinds
people
to seeing it for what it is, assault on another human being,
illegal
as hell if it's an adult.

Yup! That's is why police carry batons that have labels that
read:
"not to be used on adult"! :-)

Actually that is exactly what they are taught. They may USE them
legally for self defense, and the defense of others. Using them in
any
other manner is assault. In fact I can pick up a stick and use it
in a
legal manner to protect myself and others.

Then you are showing your stupidity again. You might want to look at
how the police handled the near riots after the Lakers won their
three NBA championships a few years back.

Rioters are breaking the law, I presume. The police, if they were
acting within department guidelines based on the laws of the locality,
were doing their job. If not, then they broke the law.

The cops job is to stop, that is to "arrest" someone either in the
commission of a crime or to determine if they have committed a
crime,
or afterwards to hold them for charges.

And to gain compliance!

And they are required to use the minimum force necessary to do so,
even in life threatening situations. You are really ignorant about
police matters, aren't you?

I fail to see how this relates to little children and their
parents?
Care to explain?.

The parents play many roles. One of them is to enforce rules in
the household.

Children as criminals? Well, what should I expect from a child that
has been spanked.

Actually that isn't the role of parents. It's to teach children how
and why the rules are in place. I find that among control freaks there
are rather a lot of pointless rules. And they spank and punishe when
someone breaks these pointless rules.

Power freaks.


Or do you think assault laws, that protect you, are for naught
byt
automotons?

Why do think cops carry batons? :-)

I don't have to think. I know the law, very well indeed. No such
laws
exist that apply to parents and children, unless the child is about
to, or has committed a crime.

Really? The laws allowed parents to spank. Do you know that?

Yep, and not to use batons on their children. Do you know that?
And you made my point. No such law, "assault laws," as I said, apply
to children and parents.

In other words there is no assault law that protects children unless
they are abused. Spanking, as you just pretended I don't know, is not
covered by assault laws.

My point exactly. What a child you are.

The failure of jurists, legislators, and the public to see that
hitting is assualt no matter how you hit is a said piece of
American
reality. It will change unless parents voluntarily change their
parenting methods first, and quickly.

LOL! I thought you know the law! ;-)

I do. I just stated it. One may hit a child with impunity as long as
they do not damage them in certain ways, from state to state.

"how" should have been "who" in the sentence above.

Children being hit are being assaulted and it is sad that we have as a
society failed to see it for what it is.

We once did not see it for women and slaves and prisoners and
apprentices either. That changed. So will this issue for children.

Cops don't carry batons to punish you, not even for being so stupid
as
you are. Children routinely are hit, and often with objects, for
their
failure to understand, for their failure to do things the parents
things they should do, that have no precedence in law.

Nope. They cops carry batons to hit you!

Yep, under carefully prescribed conditions. Not because they think you
are being naughty. You must present a threat. You are wrong about them
being able to use them to "gain compliance." They must use the minimum
force necessary. If they can physically restrain you without it, then
they must do so. A command is sufficient.

Are parents unable to gain compliance without using a baton? Under
what circumstances would you say that is so? I've never found a child
I could not stop, restrain, without using a baton or hitting for that
matter.

They have the authority
to do, as long as it is "reasonable"!

Child as criminal. I see.

Your family life must have been hell.

I hope you have no children ever.

In referance to cops and enforcement you might want to check out what
is the reasonable use of force. You may note, along the way, that cops
have been prosecuted for doing to a suspect what parents do to their
child with impunity.

Just because the parent wants it.

You have a wierd view of parents!

You have a wierd way of avoiding the facts.

Any such behavior by a police officer could cost him or her their
job,
or worse.

But cops can give you a time-out, take away your priviledge...right?
;-)

Yep. But not arbitrarily. Not under the law. Under the law a parent
may do those things without restraint.

Neither are allowed to abuse you or the child. It's that old Question
again.

All you have to do is define "reasonable."

What is "reasonable" for a cop and for a parent are very different. A
cop may NOT reasonably do many things a parent can.

And the cop, when he or she does something a parent can, like take off
your clothes, damn well better be in a hazmat situation.

Had any cops beat you with their baton lately for taking your
little
sister's toy away from her?

LOL! Have any cops give you a time-out for taking your little
sister's
toy away from her?

Nope. I didn't ask about that. I asked if they had hit you, something
highly unreasonable, that you think they can do.

I don't, by the way, approve of time outs. They are pointless. A time
in, with support and explainations are in order in those
circumstances, or if the child is too young to understand, simply
removing one from the other's presence until the child is old enough
to discuss the issue.

Sort of like with you...R R R R.

Whose
version of correct human interaction should we use?

While not a source I often refer to, being an athiest, but a
Christian
raised one, I'd say the New Testament has some pretty good stuff
about
that.

I also think some of the social mores of the more peaceful
groups
of
people in the past and even now might be examined more closely
by
antrhopologists for the possible ingredients.

There was a great study done in New Guinea many decades past.
Tribes
isolated from each other, but genetically identical, and only a
deep
valley apart...so they never met.

One was a violence ridden society, the other gentle, peaceful
and
cooperative. Their child rearing methods you can guess at.

Yup! Just look at Sweden and Singapore. Which one has the crime
rate
that is 1/10t of the other? ;-)

And which is going up, and which is going down, and which is
showing
an increasing rate of improvement and which isn't in comparison to
the
other?

It depends! :-)

Weasel.

No doubt at some time Singapore might get lucky and turn it around,
but the caneing won't be the cause one way or another. Crime is far
more than the sum of child rearing, though it is a factor.

And the "sum" is that Singapore has lower crime rate than Sweden!

You appear to not have responded to the content of my statement. Crime
is far more than the sum of child rearing being spanking, though it is
one factor.

Economics is usually the major factor in fluctuation crime rates.
The
death penalty, the ultimate CP has been shown to not reduce a
state's
homicide rate. .

Sweden is a rich country - richer than Singapore!

The comparison is not made from country to country as it effects
people's behavior. It is made relative to one's own country and the
conditions of citizens to each other.

Even among the very poor, the one with a can of soup is richer than
his neighbor without.

So much for punishment.

So much for banning spanking! :-)

Sweden coming down in crime and Singapore bouncing with the most
recent year cited going up?

So much for spanker's logic.

Doan

Kane

On 21 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:12:29 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 19 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:47:32 -0700, Doan wrote:

On 19 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:19:53 -0400, "Stephanie Stowe"
wrote:


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

R. Steve Walz would have us believe that if we just forced
parents to
stop
using punishment, our world would turn into a paradise in
which
all
children
are treated well. But is that what would really happen?
-------------
Yes, if enforced harshly. Worked in Sweden!
Actually it was NOT enforced harshly in Sweden at all.. The
statute
had NO penalties involved and was to make it legally possible to
provid training and support for non-cp methods.

Come on, Kane. You stupid piece of ****! Steve said it so, so it
must
be so. :-)

He is mistaken. If I know him he is perfectly willing to admit a
mistake when he makes one. He just doesn't, usually.

LOL! He is a REAL GENTELMAN! ;-)

I've no idea. He certainly beats the hell out of you for honesty.

LOL! That is why you are stupid!

And why am I a stupid piece of **** for posting exactly how the
Swedish model was put in place?

Because Steve's mouth is full of "****"! :-)

Now there's a nice boy who learned how to debate from his parents who
spanked him.

Steve is a "never-spanked" boy, STUPID! ;-)

The "bad adult" argument was used there too,
they still passed the law and it STILL WORKED!

And it was based on a concent of social consciousness, not
punishment.
And you are right, it did work. And as more time passes the
effects
are escalating. Other countries passed similar laws and have had
the
same kind of results...lowering youth crime rates and crimes
against
children. Remarkable.

Bad adults can be scared out of criminality.
What a concept!!


Unfortunately, not all bad behavior is criminal. Should we
legislate
all
aspects of human interaction until we are naught but
automotons?

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. What IS it about spanking that blinds
people
to seeing it for what it is, assault on another human being,
illegal
as hell if it's an adult.

Yup! That's is why police carry batons that have labels that
read:
"not to be used on adult"! :-)

Actually that is exactly what they are taught. They may USE them
legally for self defense, and the defense of others. Using them in
any
other manner is assault. In fact I can pick up a stick and use it
in a
legal manner to protect myself and others.

Then you are showing your stupidity again. You might want to look at
how the police handled the near riots after the Lakers won their
three NBA championships a few years back.

Rioters are breaking the law, I presume. The police, if they were
acting within department guidelines based on the laws of the locality,
were doing their job. If not, then they broke the law.

Same as parents. Laws allowed parents to spank their kids, STUPID! ;-)

The cops job is to stop, that is to "arrest" someone either in the
commission of a crime or to determine if they have committed a
crime,
or afterwards to hold them for charges.

And to gain compliance!

And they are required to use the minimum force necessary to do so,
even in life threatening situations. You are really ignorant about
police matters, aren't you?

They are required to use "reasonable force" - not minimum force!
You are not only ignorant, YOU ARE STUPID! :-)

I fail to see how this relates to little children and their
parents?
Care to explain?.

The parents play many roles. One of them is to enforce rules in
the household.

Children as criminals? Well, what should I expect from a child that
has been spanked.

They can be!

Actually that isn't the role of parents. It's to teach children how
and why the rules are in place. I find that among control freaks there
are rather a lot of pointless rules. And they spank and punishe when
someone breaks these pointless rules.

They are rules. Parents should enforce them.

Power freaks.

Stupid "never-spanked: boy! ;-)

Or do you think assault laws, that protect you, are for naught
byt automotons? Why do think cops carry batons? :-)
I don't have to think. I know the law, very well indeed. No such
laws exist that apply to parents and children, unless the child is
about to, or has committed a crime. Really? The laws allowed
parents to spank. Do you know that?

Yep, and not to use batons on their children. Do you know that?
And you made my point. No such law, "assault laws," as I said, apply
to children and parents.

So parents can use a baton??? ARE YOU STUPID?

In other words there is no assault law that protects children unless
they are abused. Spanking, as you just pretended I don't know, is not
covered by assault laws.

Try hitting your neighbor's kids, STUPID!

My point exactly. What a child you are.

What a stupid "never-spanked" boy you are! ;-)

The failure of jurists, legislators, and the public to see that
hitting is assualt no matter how you hit is a said piece of
American
reality. It will change unless parents voluntarily change their
parenting methods first, and quickly.

LOL! I thought you know the law! ;-)

I do. I just stated it. One may hit a child with impunity as long as
they do not damage them in certain ways, from state to state.

Yup! "reasonable force", stupid! :-)

"how" should have been "who" in the sentence above.

Children being hit are being assaulted and it is sad that we have as a
society failed to see it for what it is.

LOL! And adults are being hit batons is not assault! Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? :-)

We once did not see it for women and slaves and prisoners and
apprentices either. That changed. So will this issue for children.

So we now can give women, slave and prisoners "time-out"? ;-)

Cops don't carry batons to punish you, not even for being so stupid
as
you are. Children routinely are hit, and often with objects, for
their
failure to understand, for their failure to do things the parents
things they should do, that have no precedence in law.

Nope. They cops carry batons to hit you!

Yep, under carefully prescribed conditions. Not because they think you
are being naughty. You must present a threat. You are wrong about them
being able to use them to "gain compliance." They must use the minimum
force necessary. If they can physically restrain you without it, then
they must do so. A command is sufficient.

They use "reasonable force" - stupid! ;-)

Are parents unable to gain compliance without using a baton? Under
what circumstances would you say that is so? I've never found a child
I could not stop, restrain, without using a baton or hitting for that
matter.

They you don't have to spank. That's choice! :-)

They have the authority
to do, as long as it is "reasonable"!

Child as criminal. I see.

They can be!

Your family life must have been hell.

Nope! I live a wonderful life. How about you? ;-)

I hope you have no children ever.

LOL! Is that all you got?

In referance to cops and enforcement you might want to check out what
is the reasonable use of force. You may note, along the way, that cops
have been prosecuted for doing to a suspect what parents do to their
child with impunity.

You post it and I'll read it. I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU! ;-)

Just because the parent wants it.

You have a wierd view of parents!

You have a wierd way of avoiding the facts.

That's because you are stupid! ;-)

Any such behavior by a police officer could cost him or her their
job,
or worse.

But cops can give you a time-out, take away your priviledge...right?
;-)

Yep. But not arbitrarily. Not under the law. Under the law a parent
may do those things without restraint.

Why?

Neither are allowed to abuse you or the child. It's that old Question
again.

Still being stupid? ;-)

All you have to do is define "reasonable."

Ask the court!

What is "reasonable" for a cop and for a parent are very different. A
cop may NOT reasonably do many things a parent can.

Exactly!

And the cop, when he or she does something a parent can, like take off
your clothes, damn well better be in a hazmat situation.

Huh?

Had any cops beat you with their baton lately for taking your
little
sister's toy away from her?

LOL! Have any cops give you a time-out for taking your little
sister's
toy away from her?

Nope. I didn't ask about that. I asked if they had hit you, something
highly unreasonable, that you think they can do.

Define "unreasonable". :-)

I don't, by the way, approve of time outs. They are pointless. A time
in, with support and explainations are in order in those
circumstances, or if the child is too young to understand, simply
removing one from the other's presence until the child is old enough
to discuss the issue.

You mean you give parents the permission to use time-out? :-)

Sort of like with you...R R R R.

LOL! or you mom?

Whose
version of correct human interaction should we use?

While not a source I often refer to, being an athiest, but a
Christian
raised one, I'd say the New Testament has some pretty good stuff
about
that.

I also think some of the social mores of the more peaceful
groups
of
people in the past and even now might be examined more closely
by
antrhopologists for the possible ingredients.

There was a great study done in New Guinea many decades past.
Tribes
isolated from each other, but genetically identical, and only a
deep
valley apart...so they never met.

One was a violence ridden society, the other gentle, peaceful
and
cooperative. Their child rearing methods you can guess at.

Yup! Just look at Sweden and Singapore. Which one has the crime
rate
that is 1/10t of the other? ;-)

And which is going up, and which is going down, and which is
showing
an increasing rate of improvement and which isn't in comparison to
the
other?

It depends! :-)

Weasel.

Stupid! :-)

No doubt at some time Singapore might get lucky and turn it around,
but the caneing won't be the cause one way or another. Crime is far
more than the sum of child rearing, though it is a factor.

And the "sum" is that Singapore has lower crime rate than Sweden!

You appear to not have responded to the content of my statement. Crime
is far more than the sum of child rearing being spanking, though it is
one factor.

And it factor in the low crime rate in Singapore? :-)

Economics is usually the major factor in fluctuation crime rates.
The
death penalty, the ultimate CP has been shown to not reduce a
state's
homicide rate. .

Sweden is a rich country - richer than Singapore!

The comparison is not made from country to country as it effects
people's behavior. It is made relative to one's own country and the
conditions of citizens to each other.

Then why brought up Sweden?

Even among the very poor, the one with a can of soup is richer than
his neighbor without.

LOL! So to be rich, just live in a poor country. :-)

So much for punishment.

So much for banning spanking! :-)

Sweden coming down in crime and Singapore bouncing with the most
recent year cited going up?

Becasue of spanking? :-)

So much for spanker's logic.

You should see your own logic - the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS!
:-)

Doan

No!

To see a bare butt on a pre-teen girl over your lap is very stimulating,
and to see it get RED, is even more stimulating.....

No!

To see a bare butt on a pre-teen girl over your lap is very stimulating,
and to see it get RED, is even more stimulating.....

(Mary Gordon) wrote in message . com...
The concept presupposes kids are born gentle, loving creatures, when
the opposite is true!

That's what happens to the spanked. Logic goes. Neurosis steps in.
Thinking is warped and crap like that totally lying statement takes
its place.

There is NO presupposition on the part of people that are against
spanking that children are born any one particular way at all. They
come out with potential and how they are treated, with kindness,
warmth, undestanding, support, and gentleness is the MAIN DETERMINANT
of whether or not they will be gentle loving creatures, or dangerous
twits, as you appear to be, or vicious violent cheating, lying brutes,
as so many ARE that are spanked as children.

See this recent study.
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index...&static=138920

Frankly it is a joke. It misses the point entirely and tries to
measure what is not measureable...or so difficult it is to costly by
far to do so. (and would, if scientifically applied, fly in the face
of research ethics with human subjects.)

The subject needs to be, what happens when normal humans, who of
COURSE will go after what they perceive they need, are spanked, and
when they are taught instead how to get their needs met.

I LOVE that the issue was 2 year olds together doing harm. Like THAT
takes a lot of brains to figure out. By the way, children of two,
whose needs are being well met by parents usually do NOT strike out at
other children unless unusually provoked.

You people are beyond hope it seems. Why is it some who are spanked
manage to escape this thinking error nonsense that others of you fall
so deeply victim to?

Now THERE would be something worth studying. How some who are spanked
escape it and the others are trapped in it.

Mary G.

Kane

(Mary Gordon) wrote in message . com...
The concept presupposes kids are born gentle, loving creatures, when
the opposite is true!

That's what happens to the spanked. Logic goes. Neurosis steps in.
Thinking is warped and crap like that totally lying statement takes
its place.

There is NO presupposition on the part of people that are against
spanking that children are born any one particular way at all. They
come out with potential and how they are treated, with kindness,
warmth, undestanding, support, and gentleness is the MAIN DETERMINANT
of whether or not they will be gentle loving creatures, or dangerous
twits, as you appear to be, or vicious violent cheating, lying brutes,
as so many ARE that are spanked as children.

See this recent study.
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index...&static=138920

Frankly it is a joke. It misses the point entirely and tries to
measure what is not measureable...or so difficult it is to costly by
far to do so. (and would, if scientifically applied, fly in the face
of research ethics with human subjects.)

The subject needs to be, what happens when normal humans, who of
COURSE will go after what they perceive they need, are spanked, and
when they are taught instead how to get their needs met.

I LOVE that the issue was 2 year olds together doing harm. Like THAT
takes a lot of brains to figure out. By the way, children of two,
whose needs are being well met by parents usually do NOT strike out at
other children unless unusually provoked.

You people are beyond hope it seems. Why is it some who are spanked
manage to escape this thinking error nonsense that others of you fall
so deeply victim to?

Now THERE would be something worth studying. How some who are spanked
escape it and the others are trapped in it.

Mary G.

Kane