Suppose we Outlawed Punishment?

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?

At present, people who choose to parent without punishing tend to be
committed to an underlying philosophy of treating their children with
respect and putting their children's needs first. Their rejection of
punishment is not just a rejection of methods of punishment that are
normally illegal among adults, but a rejection of other forms of negativity
that are perfectly legal for adults to use on each other. Adults can nag
each other, yell at each other, and say hurtful things toward each other.
Adults can give each other the "silent treatment" and withhold affection
from each other in other ways. Adults can stop doing things for each other
that they've been doing, and start doing things that they know annoy each
other. And there are probably other little ways in which adults can punish
each other without violating the law. But such behaviors toward children
would violate the philosophy that normally underlies the choice of a
non-punitive parenting style.

Further, parents who choose to take a purely non-punitive approach to
parenting tend to be willing to put a significant amount of time and effort
into finding positive ways to deal with problems. They look for better ways
for the children to satisfy their desires. They explain why they want their
children to do one thing or not to do another. And so on.

But now consider what might happen if a bad parent is told, "You are no
longer allowed to do anything to your child that you could not legally do to
an adult." A parent who nags, yells at, and otherwise expresses negative
feelings toward a child is not going to magically stop just because
explicitly punishing the child is now illegal. On the contrary, at least
unless and until the parent learns better techniques, the nagging, yelling,
and other verbal negativity would probably get worse. Also, traditional
punishments might just be replaced with other, legal forms of negative
treatment.

Worse, some of the negative techniques of types adults sometimes use on each
other might actually show a greater rejection of the child as a person than
traditional punishments such as spanking, time out, or grounding would. If
a child can tie a punishment to a particular violation of a rule, the child
has at least a chance of recognizing that the punishment is a rejection of
the behavior, not of the child. But if, instead of a couple swats on the
bottom or a few minutes in time out, the parent decides to punish the child
by ignoring him for a couple days, the association between the behavior and
the consequence may be a lot less clear.

Consider what happens in marriages when spouses start treating each other
that way. Such situations often end in divorce and, if divorce were not
allowed, could easily end in a lifetime of escalating misery.

Steve could (and probably will) counter by arguing that parents should be
required not to do those kinds of things to their children either. But the
moment he does so, his philosophical basis collapses. His primary basis for
arguing that parents should not be allowed to punish their children comes
from an assertion that children have the SAME rights as adults. Attempting
to give children extra rights above and beyond what adults have would
violate that assertion, and if it is philosophically reasonable to consider
reasons why we might give children more rights than adults, it must also be
philosophically reasonable to consider why we might give them fewer.

In my view, the fundamental problem is not the fact that parents are allowed
to punish children in ways that would be illegal with adults, but rather in
the underlying attitude of parents who build negative relationships with
their children instead of at least primarily positive ones. And the
solution to that problem is education, not efforts to use punitive means to
control parents. We need to use the same positive techniques with parents
that we want them to rely on as at least their primary way of relating to
their children. And if we do so, we model the belief that such techniques
can work instead of modeling the belief that if you want people to change
their behavior, you have to use threats and punishment. (There are few
things more hypocritical or reflective of cognitive dissonance than the
attitude, "Punishment doesn't work, so we need to punish parents who punish
their children.")

That's not to say that we should revoke our child abuse statutes or anything
along those lines. I might even be inclined to support strengthening the
system so that parents who exhibit patterns of ongoing serious negative
treatment of their children that do not rise to the level of abuse can be
required to take a class in positive parenting skills, although I am
reluctant to trust current CPS agencies with that kind of power. (Note that
such classes would need to adopt realistic goals: instead of turning off
parents by telling them never to yell or punish, turn them on to things they
should do instead as much as possible.) But there are limits to how far we
can go through coercive means without doing more harm than good, especially
considering that making parents angry at government over intrusive
"anti-parent" laws is not exactly something that would help make them better
parents.

Nathan

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!

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

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


At present, people who choose to parent without punishing tend to be
committed to an underlying philosophy of treating their children with
respect and putting their children's needs first. Their rejection of
punishment is not just a rejection of methods of punishment that are
normally illegal among adults, but a rejection of other forms of negativity
that are perfectly legal for adults to use on each other. Adults can nag
each other, yell at each other, and say hurtful things toward each other.
Adults can give each other the "silent treatment" and withhold affection
from each other in other ways. Adults can stop doing things for each other
that they've been doing, and start doing things that they know annoy each
other. And there are probably other little ways in which adults can punish
each other without violating the law. But such behaviors toward children
would violate the philosophy that normally underlies the choice of a
non-punitive parenting style.

Further, parents who choose to take a purely non-punitive approach to
parenting tend to be willing to put a significant amount of time and effort
into finding positive ways to deal with problems. They look for better ways
for the children to satisfy their desires. They explain why they want their
children to do one thing or not to do another. And so on.

But now consider what might happen if a bad parent is told, "You are no
longer allowed to do anything to your child that you could not legally do to
an adult." A parent who nags, yells at, and otherwise expresses negative
feelings toward a child is not going to magically stop just because
explicitly punishing the child is now illegal. On the contrary, at least
unless and until the parent learns better techniques, the nagging, yelling,
and other verbal negativity would probably get worse. Also, traditional
punishments might just be replaced with other, legal forms of negative
treatment.

Worse, some of the negative techniques of types adults sometimes use on each
other might actually show a greater rejection of the child as a person than
traditional punishments such as spanking, time out, or grounding would. If
a child can tie a punishment to a particular violation of a rule, the child
has at least a chance of recognizing that the punishment is a rejection of
the behavior, not of the child. But if, instead of a couple swats on the
bottom or a few minutes in time out, the parent decides to punish the child
by ignoring him for a couple days, the association between the behavior and
the consequence may be a lot less clear.

Consider what happens in marriages when spouses start treating each other
that way. Such situations often end in divorce and, if divorce were not
allowed, could easily end in a lifetime of escalating misery.

Steve could (and probably will) counter by arguing that parents should be
required not to do those kinds of things to their children either. But the
moment he does so, his philosophical basis collapses. His primary basis for
arguing that parents should not be allowed to punish their children comes
from an assertion that children have the SAME rights as adults. Attempting
to give children extra rights above and beyond what adults have would
violate that assertion, and if it is philosophically reasonable to consider
reasons why we might give children more rights than adults, it must also be
philosophically reasonable to consider why we might give them fewer.

In my view, the fundamental problem is not the fact that parents are allowed
to punish children in ways that would be illegal with adults, but rather in
the underlying attitude of parents who build negative relationships with
their children instead of at least primarily positive ones. And the
solution to that problem is education, not efforts to use punitive means to
control parents. We need to use the same positive techniques with parents
that we want them to rely on as at least their primary way of relating to
their children. And if we do so, we model the belief that such techniques
can work instead of modeling the belief that if you want people to change
their behavior, you have to use threats and punishment. (There are few
things more hypocritical or reflective of cognitive dissonance than the
attitude, "Punishment doesn't work, so we need to punish parents who punish
their children.")

That's not to say that we should revoke our child abuse statutes or anything
along those lines. I might even be inclined to support strengthening the
system so that parents who exhibit patterns of ongoing serious negative
treatment of their children that do not rise to the level of abuse can be
required to take a class in positive parenting skills, although I am
reluctant to trust current CPS agencies with that kind of power. (Note that
such classes would need to adopt realistic goals: instead of turning off
parents by telling them never to yell or punish, turn them on to things they
should do instead as much as possible.) But there are limits to how far we
can go through coercive means without doing more harm than good, especially
considering that making parents angry at government over intrusive
"anti-parent" laws is not exactly something that would help make them better
parents.

Nathan

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

Then you are simply IGNORANT! Read up on the law banning spanking in
Sweden before you open your mouth. :-)

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

It did? How?

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

LOL! You meant like the War on Drugs? ;-)

Doan

Steve


At present, people who choose to parent without punishing tend to be
committed to an underlying philosophy of treating their children with
respect and putting their children's needs first. Their rejection of
punishment is not just a rejection of methods of punishment that are
normally illegal among adults, but a rejection of other forms of negativity
that are perfectly legal for adults to use on each other. Adults can nag
each other, yell at each other, and say hurtful things toward each other.
Adults can give each other the "silent treatment" and withhold affection
from each other in other ways. Adults can stop doing things for each other
that they've been doing, and start doing things that they know annoy each
other. And there are probably other little ways in which adults can punish
each other without violating the law. But such behaviors toward children
would violate the philosophy that normally underlies the choice of a
non-punitive parenting style.

Further, parents who choose to take a purely non-punitive approach to
parenting tend to be willing to put a significant amount of time and effort
into finding positive ways to deal with problems. They look for better ways
for the children to satisfy their desires. They explain why they want their
children to do one thing or not to do another. And so on.

But now consider what might happen if a bad parent is told, "You are no
longer allowed to do anything to your child that you could not legally do to
an adult." A parent who nags, yells at, and otherwise expresses negative
feelings toward a child is not going to magically stop just because
explicitly punishing the child is now illegal. On the contrary, at least
unless and until the parent learns better techniques, the nagging, yelling,
and other verbal negativity would probably get worse. Also, traditional
punishments might just be replaced with other, legal forms of negative
treatment.

Worse, some of the negative techniques of types adults sometimes use on each
other might actually show a greater rejection of the child as a person than
traditional punishments such as spanking, time out, or grounding would. If
a child can tie a punishment to a particular violation of a rule, the child
has at least a chance of recognizing that the punishment is a rejection of
the behavior, not of the child. But if, instead of a couple swats on the
bottom or a few minutes in time out, the parent decides to punish the child
by ignoring him for a couple days, the association between the behavior and
the consequence may be a lot less clear.

Consider what happens in marriages when spouses start treating each other
that way. Such situations often end in divorce and, if divorce were not
allowed, could easily end in a lifetime of escalating misery.

Steve could (and probably will) counter by arguing that parents should be
required not to do those kinds of things to their children either. But the
moment he does so, his philosophical basis collapses. His primary basis for
arguing that parents should not be allowed to punish their children comes
from an assertion that children have the SAME rights as adults. Attempting
to give children extra rights above and beyond what adults have would
violate that assertion, and if it is philosophically reasonable to consider
reasons why we might give children more rights than adults, it must also be
philosophically reasonable to consider why we might give them fewer.

In my view, the fundamental problem is not the fact that parents are allowed
to punish children in ways that would be illegal with adults, but rather in
the underlying attitude of parents who build negative relationships with
their children instead of at least primarily positive ones. And the
solution to that problem is education, not efforts to use punitive means to
control parents. We need to use the same positive techniques with parents
that we want them to rely on as at least their primary way of relating to
their children. And if we do so, we model the belief that such techniques
can work instead of modeling the belief that if you want people to change
their behavior, you have to use threats and punishment. (There are few
things more hypocritical or reflective of cognitive dissonance than the
attitude, "Punishment doesn't work, so we need to punish parents who punish
their children.")

That's not to say that we should revoke our child abuse statutes or anything
along those lines. I might even be inclined to support strengthening the
system so that parents who exhibit patterns of ongoing serious negative
treatment of their children that do not rise to the level of abuse can be
required to take a class in positive parenting skills, although I am
reluctant to trust current CPS agencies with that kind of power. (Note that
such classes would need to adopt realistic goals: instead of turning off
parents by telling them never to yell or punish, turn them on to things they
should do instead as much as possible.) But there are limits to how far we
can go through coercive means without doing more harm than good, especially
considering that making parents angry at government over intrusive
"anti-parent" laws is not exactly something that would help make them better
parents.

Nathan

"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!

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

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? Whose
version of correct human interaction should we use? While I agree that
punitive discipline measures are at best not helpful and at worst... well
horrifying. But I do not see legislating as the answer. Some people are
just freakin' stupid and no laws are going to change that.


SNIP

"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!

My understanding was that Sweden's law does not carry a strong enforcement
provision. (Indeed, I'm thinking I heard it carried practically none, but
it's been a few years so I might be mistaken.)

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

Did it? I'd like to see some evidence supporting that claim.

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

Yet you deny all possibility that the threat of punishment can scare
children out of engaging in behaviors their parents want to stop. It would
seem that your views are less than entirely consistent, to put it mildly.

The concept presupposes kids are born gentle, loving creatures, when
the opposite is true!

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

Mary G.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin




a123sdg321

On 17 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin


On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 7 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

This would be easy to prove. A simple google search would turn up
what Kane0 claimed. Come on, Chris! Here your chance to prove how
"honest" Kane0 is. I'll give you ten days. If you can't, then I
have to conclude that Kane is a liar and you are in cahoot! :-)

Time is ticking away. Can Chris really be wrong about the
"never-spanked" Kane0 again? :-)

Doan

Still nothing from Kane0 nor from Chris! Time is running out. :-)

Beg your pardon. I answered you in

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...gle.com&rnum=3

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!

You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

Refering to the Singapore information that I had supplied even
earlier.

It's obvious you are stuck once again, as you always go to nitpicking
some inconsequential issue to avoid the facts: That paragon of law and
order through the brutal practice of caning has, by it's own police
department's admission, a youth crime problem.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...gle.com&rnum=2

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!


You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

I pointed out in the above post exactly what you are doing right now.
You want to argue about a time span or dates of posts and content ....
anything rather than respond to the facts I supplied you months ago
from the Singapore government website and the police statement
concerning their youth crime problem.

And I directed you to take a look for yourself, which apparently, now
that you are off on one of your diversionary "I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
sillinesses, I have to post again and ask you once again, as I did the
first time I posted it to use it to defend your claim that Singapore
crime is down.

I provided the URL below in my message,

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...le.com&rnum=11
or http://tinyurl.com/3cnq7

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!

You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

Here is the URL I provided:

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

Where, if you had gone to look instead of continuing your usual lying
and dodging you would have found the page opening with:


"Singapore crime rate worsens in 2002

Agence France Presse
February 20, 2003
SINGAPORE


CRIME worsened in Singapore in 2002 as reported offences rose almost
10 percent, most noticeably in juvenile crimes, Singapore police said
Thursday, Feb 20.
Figures showed 31,971 cases were reported last year, up 9.95 per cent
from 29,077 in 2001."


"Despite the jump, a police statement said the figures were the second
lowest of the past 15 years."

Like I said, you have to be STUPID or a very BAD LIAR!

"Singapore crime rate worsens in 2002?"

When claiming a "lowest" figure it's always nice to look at the actual
numbers. Was it two less or 20,000 less?

Are you too stupid to look at post the actual figures, or a liar?

Notice that even with CP youth crime is up nearly 10 percent in one
year? Tell you anything about the use of CP as a deterent or a
teaching tool?

I'm sorry, I made a typo...make that 49% in one year.

Here's what they put up for the tourists:

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/...ndicators.html that
reflects that 10% or so.

Now here's that crime rate for youth....something you are avoiding
with all your little might. Don't hold your breath too long. You'll
turn green.

http://www.spf.gov.sg/
5 Youth crime continues to be an area of concern. More juveniles and
young persons were arrested in 2003 as compared to 2002. The three
common offences committed are shop theft, other theft and rioting.

"Wong said youth crime had risen, with the number of arrests jumping
by 49 percent to about 4000 last year, up from 2800 the year before."
The URL for this quote above is further along in this post.

By the way, did you know that Singapore fudges it's crime data
reporting to the good side?

"Comment; Singapore, 10/15/2001:
A representative of the Singapore Department of Statistics notes that
Table 2 on Crime Recorded in Criminal (police) Statistics by Type of
Crime computes Singapores's crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants using
resident population figures as base:

"...Singapore's resident population refers to Singapore citizens and
persons who have been granted permanent stay in Singapore only,
excluding foreigners who are living or working in Singapore but have
not been granted permanent residence.

The crime rate for Singapore should be computed based on the total
population including foreigners living or working in Singapore. ?""

Gosh, you'd think with all that caning the officials doing the reports
would be more careful, now wouldn't you. Looks like they suffer from
your ailment.

And have you bothered to consider....Singapore has a very small
population in a very crowded setting geographically, making them much
easier to police than the population in Sweden.

But here's what I get from the UN report of the late 90's:

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/sixth...able_print.pdf

Total prosecution for major assault.

Sweden 17.26 13.80 12.64

Singapore 2.24 1.48 1.80

That's rate per 100k. An both show they go down. Now considering that
one has spanking, even caneing legalized, and the other doesn't how
are you going to defend the Singaporian practice as having an effect
you claim. You do recall that while Singapore has been a caneing
country all along, Sweden only in recent years barred spanking.

If you work your way through the charts in the pdf file you will see
that both Singapore and Sweden have remarkably similar patterns in the
falling crime rate..but then so do many countries. Your problem is to
so how Singapore is superior based on your claims.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030117re.htm Even they note that
this is a tightly controlled state. Something neither the US or Sweden
is ever likely to be. Though it appears you wish for it if you are
using Singapore as an example of the use of punishment to lower crime.

"Wong said youth crime had risen, with the number of arrests jumping
by 49 percent to about 4000 last year, up from 2800 the year before."

The tightly controlled people who are packed in an easier to monitor
are the primary reason for low crime in Singapore.





Naw, of course not.

You seem to not want to really discuss an issue YOU brought up, the
difference in the crime rate for Sweden vs Singapore.

Now why is that I wonder....R R R R R

Spanked children frequently grow to be cowards and bullies.

And "never-spanked" kids grow up to be like you, hiding behind fake emails
and hurling insults like "smelly-****" and "**** you, Chris"! ;-)

You know who I am. Stop playing dumb. As for my language.....I didn't
grow up to advocate the hitting of children. Bad language doesn't
indicate a bad person. Child hitting certainly does. And the
advocating of it.

Do you wish to defend Singapore's use of CP as being responsible for
it youth crime rate, or not?

You meant the "SECOND LOWEST of the past 15 YEARS"??? ;-)

That isn't an answer to the question I asked, but I'm happy to have
posted all the information for you that shows both Sweden and
Singapore have experienced similar reductions in crime rate...one
still caneing, and the other outlawing it even for children.

Care to explain...or are you going to continue to dodge, as you do
when you are stumped?

I notice recently rather a lot of challenges of your nonsense by me
going not only unanswered but ignored. Tsk, Droany.


Doan


Yes, you are that alright. On both sides, to a crisp.

Kane0

"Never-spanked" and 9 less than a dog! ;-)

Doan

I've never owned a dog that would hurt a child, or try to get others
to. In fact my own for many years protected my toddler daughter from
dogs that tried to attack her.

So one of is has the ethics and concience of a dog...mine, who, by the
way, was namee Pohaku Kane after a very rich landowner (you would know
his name if you could figure out both the language and the
referrences) I used to buy horses from back in the 60's. Fine
thoroughbreds range bred. I was always the first human to touch them.

You haven't even that much conscience. You champion the state that
does such things as caneing, and:

"Singapore's strict penal code includes a mandatory death sentence for
anyone over 18 guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (half an
ounce) of heroin, 30 grams of morphine or 500 grams of cannabis. "

Have you read Boon Hock Chia on suicide in Singapore among both the
elderly and youth? You really should. In fact Singapore has an
inenviable record on this issue.

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/healt...244018,00.html

The rate at which young Singaporean women are committing suicide is
one of the highest in the world today, according to Dr Chia Boon Hock,
a psychiatrist in private practice.

Here's the rate for the highest GNP nations:

Country Rate (per 100,000)
Finland 26.4
Denmark 20.4
Austria 20.4
France 19.8
Switzerland 19.6
Japan 15.1
Sweden 14.7
Germany 13.8
Norway 13
United States 11.8
Netherlands 9.6


If you check the various figures from various years and demographics
you'll see that overall Singapore ranks roughly in the middle, but for
certain groups, very high indeed.

If CP is superior to non-punitive menthods how do explain this...the
more intense and dedicated the application of it the less it seems to
be effective.

All in all your caneing paradise seems to not be so much of one after
all.

But you could go live there. Give it a try.

Kane

On 18 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:15 PM
Subject: One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin




a123sdg321

On 17 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doan"
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: One More Nail in Spanking's Ugly Coffin


On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Doan wrote:

On 7 Jun 2004, Chris wrote:

Kane wrote:
: On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:27:34 -0700, Doan wrote:

:
:LOL! Singapore have a youth crime problem? Give us the rate and
:compare that to Sweden, shall we?

: Already did, weeks ago.

This is par for the course with Doan. He will keep making the same
"errors" over and over again, with a waiting period in between, so that
yet another new crop of transient lurkers will get the impression that he
has actual substantive arguments to make.

This would be easy to prove. A simple google search would turn up
what Kane0 claimed. Come on, Chris! Here your chance to prove how
"honest" Kane0 is. I'll give you ten days. If you can't, then I
have to conclude that Kane is a liar and you are in cahoot! :-)

Time is ticking away. Can Chris really be wrong about the
"never-spanked" Kane0 again? :-)

Doan

Still nothing from Kane0 nor from Chris! Time is running out. :-)

Beg your pardon. I answered you in

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...gle.com&rnum=3

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!

You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

You are! Unless you can show me. What rate?

Refering to the Singapore information that I had supplied even
earlier.

It's obvious you are stuck once again, as you always go to nitpicking
some inconsequential issue to avoid the facts: That paragon of law and
order through the brutal practice of caning has, by it's own police
department's admission, a youth crime problem.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...gle.com&rnum=2

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!


You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

You are! Unless you can show me. What rate?

I pointed out in the above post exactly what you are doing right now.
You want to argue about a time span or dates of posts and content ....
anything rather than respond to the facts I supplied you months ago
from the Singapore government website and the police statement
concerning their youth crime problem.

And I directed you to take a look for yourself, which apparently, now
that you are off on one of your diversionary "I DOUBLE DARE YOU"
sillinesses, I have to post again and ask you once again, as I did the
first time I posted it to use it to defend your claim that Singapore
crime is down.

I provided the URL below in my message,

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2...le.com&rnum=11
or http://tinyurl.com/3cnq7

Nothing that compare Sweden and Singapore!

You are unable to look at the two country's crime rates and compare?
Are you that stupid?

You are! Unless you can show me. What rate?

Here is the URL I provided:

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030220af.htm

Where, if you had gone to look instead of continuing your usual lying
and dodging you would have found the page opening with:


"Singapore crime rate worsens in 2002

Agence France Presse
February 20, 2003
SINGAPORE


CRIME worsened in Singapore in 2002 as reported offences rose almost
10 percent, most noticeably in juvenile crimes, Singapore police said
Thursday, Feb 20.
Figures showed 31,971 cases were reported last year, up 9.95 per cent
from 29,077 in 2001."


"Despite the jump, a police statement said the figures were the second
lowest of the past 15 years."

Like I said, you have to be STUPID or a very BAD LIAR!

"Singapore crime rate worsens in 2002?"

When claiming a "lowest" figure it's always nice to look at the actual
numbers. Was it two less or 20,000 less?

Do you have the numbers for all 15 years?

Are you too stupid to look at post the actual figures, or a liar?

I am throwing the citation back in your face. It said 2nd lowest in
15 years! You're are STUPID!

Notice that even with CP youth crime is up nearly 10 percent in one
year? Tell you anything about the use of CP as a deterent or a
teaching tool?

I'm sorry, I made a typo...make that 49% in one year.

That's ok!

Here's what they put up for the tourists:

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/...ndicators.html that
reflects that 10% or so.


Now here's that crime rate for youth....something you are avoiding
with all your little might. Don't hold your breath too long. You'll
turn green.

You are being stupid. Put the numbers side by side with Sweden. I
DARE YOU! ;-)

http://www.spf.gov.sg/
5 Youth crime continues to be an area of concern. More juveniles and
young persons were arrested in 2003 as compared to 2002. The three
common offences committed are shop theft, other theft and rioting.

That tells you nothing!

"Wong said youth crime had risen, with the number of arrests jumping
by 49 percent to about 4000 last year, up from 2800 the year before."
The URL for this quote above is further along in this post.

4000 out of how many?

By the way, did you know that Singapore fudges it's crime data
reporting to the good side?

Really? :-)

"Comment; Singapore, 10/15/2001:
A representative of the Singapore Department of Statistics notes that
Table 2 on Crime Recorded in Criminal (police) Statistics by Type of
Crime computes Singapores's crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants using
resident population figures as base:

"...Singapore's resident population refers to Singapore citizens and
persons who have been granted permanent stay in Singapore only,
excluding foreigners who are living or working in Singapore but have
not been granted permanent residence.

The crime rate for Singapore should be computed based on the total
population including foreigners living or working in Singapore. ?""

Gosh, you'd think with all that caning the officials doing the reports
would be more careful, now wouldn't you. Looks like they suffer from
your ailment.

LOL!

And have you bothered to consider....Singapore has a very small
population in a very crowded setting geographically, making them much
easier to police than the population in Sweden.

LOL! So New York must have less crime then Utah? You are stupid!
The more crowded the more crime! That is basic, STUPID!

But here's what I get from the UN report of the late 90's:

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/sixth...able_print.pdf

Total prosecution for major assault.

Sweden 17.26 13.80 12.64

Singapore 2.24 1.48 1.80

Sweden crime rate is higher! So much for non-spanking! YOU ARE STUPID!

Doan

That's rate per 100k. An both show they go down. Now considering that
one has spanking, even caneing legalized, and the other doesn't how
are you going to defend the Singaporian practice as having an effect
you claim. You do recall that while Singapore has been a caneing
country all along, Sweden only in recent years barred spanking.

If you work your way through the charts in the pdf file you will see
that both Singapore and Sweden have remarkably similar patterns in the
falling crime rate..but then so do many countries. Your problem is to
so how Singapore is superior based on your claims.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030117re.htm Even they note that
this is a tightly controlled state. Something neither the US or Sweden
is ever likely to be. Though it appears you wish for it if you are
using Singapore as an example of the use of punishment to lower crime.

"Wong said youth crime had risen, with the number of arrests jumping
by 49 percent to about 4000 last year, up from 2800 the year before."

The tightly controlled people who are packed in an easier to monitor
are the primary reason for low crime in Singapore.





Naw, of course not.

You seem to not want to really discuss an issue YOU brought up, the
difference in the crime rate for Sweden vs Singapore.

Now why is that I wonder....R R R R R

Spanked children frequently grow to be cowards and bullies.

And "never-spanked" kids grow up to be like you, hiding behind fake emails
and hurling insults like "smelly-****" and "**** you, Chris"! ;-)

You know who I am. Stop playing dumb. As for my language.....I didn't
grow up to advocate the hitting of children. Bad language doesn't
indicate a bad person. Child hitting certainly does. And the
advocating of it.

Do you wish to defend Singapore's use of CP as being responsible for
it youth crime rate, or not?

You meant the "SECOND LOWEST of the past 15 YEARS"??? ;-)

That isn't an answer to the question I asked, but I'm happy to have
posted all the information for you that shows both Sweden and
Singapore have experienced similar reductions in crime rate...one
still caneing, and the other outlawing it even for children.

Care to explain...or are you going to continue to dodge, as you do
when you are stumped?

I notice recently rather a lot of challenges of your nonsense by me
going not only unanswered but ignored. Tsk, Droany.


Doan


Yes, you are that alright. On both sides, to a crisp.

Kane0

"Never-spanked" and 9 less than a dog! ;-)

Doan

I've never owned a dog that would hurt a child, or try to get others
to. In fact my own for many years protected my toddler daughter from
dogs that tried to attack her.

So one of is has the ethics and concience of a dog...mine, who, by the
way, was namee Pohaku Kane after a very rich landowner (you would know
his name if you could figure out both the language and the
referrences) I used to buy horses from back in the 60's. Fine
thoroughbreds range bred. I was always the first human to touch them.

You haven't even that much conscience. You champion the state that
does such things as caneing, and:

"Singapore's strict penal code includes a mandatory death sentence for
anyone over 18 guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams (half an
ounce) of heroin, 30 grams of morphine or 500 grams of cannabis. "

Have you read Boon Hock Chia on suicide in Singapore among both the
elderly and youth? You really should. In fact Singapore has an
inenviable record on this issue.

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/healt...244018,00.html

The rate at which young Singaporean women are committing suicide is
one of the highest in the world today, according to Dr Chia Boon Hock,
a psychiatrist in private practice.

Here's the rate for the highest GNP nations:

Country Rate (per 100,000)
Finland 26.4
Denmark 20.4
Austria 20.4
France 19.8
Switzerland 19.6
Japan 15.1
Sweden 14.7
Germany 13.8
Norway 13
United States 11.8
Netherlands 9.6


If you check the various figures from various years and demographics
you'll see that overall Singapore ranks roughly in the middle, but for
certain groups, very high indeed.

If CP is superior to non-punitive menthods how do explain this...the
more intense and dedicated the application of it the less it seems to
be effective.

All in all your caneing paradise seems to not be so much of one after
all.

But you could go live there. Give it a try.

Kane

On 18 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Total prosecution for major assault.

Sweden 17.26 13.80 12.64

Singapore 2.24 1.48 1.80


So after a generation of banning spanking, crime rate in Sweden is
about ten times that of Singapore. Anti-spanking zealotS will tell
you that banning spanking worked! ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

Then you are simply IGNORANT! Read up on the law banning spanking in
Sweden before you open your mouth. :-)
-----------------------
Ahhh, lying AGAIN, I see!!
You use more caps the less confident you feel!
*I* use them for punctuation!


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

It did? How?
--------------------
OOoooo! Don't YOU know? YOU just got done saying you DID!


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

LOL! You meant like the War on Drugs? ;-)
Doan
------------------------
Irrelevant, and too mixed to compare.
Steve