Suppose we Outlawed Punishment?

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, R. Steve Walz wrote:

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!

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?
----------------
No, just Evil.


Whose
version of correct human interaction should we use?
-----------------
The REAL one, the one that Rightist criminals won't acknowledge.


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

Then you should be on death row!

Doan

On 18 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
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.

But dropping at a rate greater than Singapore's. Interesting eh? So
tell us, prior to the spanking ban was Swedens crime rate greater than
Singapore's? If so then the critical issues is the rate of decrease,
not the end result...yet.

Sweden's dropped 1.16, Singapore's went up .42. For a country so tiny
with only a 4 million population that represents a considerable
change...especially in a society so repressive and brutal on crime.
Executions for drug offenses.

Anti-spanking zealotS will tell
you that banning spanking worked! ;-)

Of course it did. The crime rate is dropping faster then the Singapore
one. In fact, if you'll notice, Singapore is UP from one year to the
next of the last two yeas.

Let's see. 2.24 to 1.48. That is going DOWN, stupid! :-)

Doan

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. :-)

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"! :-)

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

Why do think cops carry batons? :-)

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? ;-)

Doan

Tim and Stephanie Stowe wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
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!

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?
----------------
No, just Evil.


Whose
version of correct human interaction should we use?
-----------------
The REAL one, the one that Rightist criminals won't acknowledge.


You are not understanding me. I am not saying that your position is wrong,
exactly. Just impracticable. I guess if you convinced enough people on
usenet, it could become practicable. But I am not holding my breath.
--------------------------
Nonsense, that's like when slaveholders in the Old South in the USA
pretended that they would even LIKE to free their slaves, "if it
were only practicable!!"


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

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


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

Doan wrote in message ...
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! ;-)

Well it was 7.7 times higher in the first instance, and 7.02 in the
last one.

Would you say the rate difference is, over time, increasing, or
decreasing?

Would you like Singapore to take the blame for it's failure to keep up
with Sweden by using the issue of caneing, as you seem to want to use
it to prove Singapore's superiority?

So you have no point other than you don't wish to allow any
consideration of increase and decrease over time, the only variable
that matters actually in examining change.

In other words, you are logic impaired rather badly.

This is yet another typical example of the thinking errors inherent in
those that were spanked and punished as children. They have a very
difficult time with truth and facts.

Doan

On 19 Jun 2004, Kane wrote:

Doan wrote in message ...
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! ;-)

Well it was 7.7 times higher in the first instance, and 7.02 in the
last one.

and 9.32 in the middle one! :-)

Would you say the rate difference is, over time, increasing, or
decreasing?

Both!

Would you like Singapore to take the blame for it's failure to keep up
with Sweden by using the issue of caneing, as you seem to want to use
it to prove Singapore's superiority?

How stupid! Did I say that?

So you have no point other than you don't wish to allow any
consideration of increase and decrease over time, the only variable
that matters actually in examining change.

I've always said spanking/no-spanking has nothing to do with it.
Anti-spanking zealotS, on the other hand... :-)

In other words, you are logic impaired rather badly.

LOL! You are stupid!

This is yet another typical example of the thinking errors inherent in
those that were spanked and punished as children. They have a very
difficult time with truth and facts.

And "never-spanked" kids like you tend to hurl insults like "smelly-****"
amd "**** you, Chris"! :-)

Doan

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Just because the parent wants it.

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

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

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?

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.

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. .

So much for punishment.

Doan

Kane

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Nonsense, that's like when slaveholders in the Old South in the USA
pretended that they would even LIKE to free their slaves, "if it
were only practicable!!"

Actually, there were slaveowners who felt exactly that way. Keep in mind
that slaves were valuable property, so unless society was prepared to come
up with the money to compensate the slaveowners for their financial loss,
freeing the slaves would have imposed a huge unilateral financial burden on
the slaveowners. As a result, there were in fact slaveowners who disliked
the institution of slavery in principle but who were unwilling to
unilaterally give up a significant percentage of their wealth in freeing
their own slaves. (Some of the best evidence of such situations comes from
cases where slaveowners arranged in their wills to have their slaves freed
after they died.)

My impression is that what existed was a situation where abolitionists
generally took the attitude, "You shouldn't own those people in the first
place, so if you have to give up wealth to free them, it's your own fault,"
while the more moderate slaveowners took the attitude, "The Constitution
allows slavery, so you have no right to demand that we give up our property
without fair compensation." I'm not sure how much that disconnect over who
should absorb the cost of ending slavery helped to contribute to the
situation that ignited the Civil War, but I have no doubt that it played at
least some role.

As for how that issue relates to the issue of spanking children, I think the
differences say a lot more than the similarities. The issue of finding a
practical way to end slavery without violating slaveowners' property rights
and without posing an unacceptable cost on people who didn't own slaves
posed a huge one-time hurdle that, if society could find a way past it, was
going to stop being an issue once slavery was abolished. In contrast, the
question of how to handle situations where children want to behave in ways
that pose a serious danger to themselves or a danger to others, or that
otherwise cause problems for others, is an ongoing one.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Nonsense, that's like when slaveholders in the Old South in the USA
pretended that they would even LIKE to free their slaves, "if it
were only practicable!!"

Actually, there were slaveowners who felt exactly that way.
------------------
Yeah, we KNOW, they were DISINGENUOUS!!


Keep in mind
that slaves were valuable property, so unless society was prepared to come
up with the money to compensate the slaveowners for their financial loss,
freeing the slaves would have imposed a huge unilateral financial burden on
the slaveowners.
----------------------
Hahahahahahahahah! Slaveholders wanting to be compensated for the
loss if they stopped violating the freedom of others!! Sounds like
the rich!!

Kill 'em ALL!!


As a result, there were in fact slaveowners who disliked
the institution of slavery in principle but who were unwilling to
unilaterally give up a significant percentage of their wealth in freeing
their own slaves. (Some of the best evidence of such situations comes from
cases where slaveowners arranged in their wills to have their slaves freed
after they died.)
------------------------------
Kill 'em all!!


My impression is that what existed was a situation where abolitionists
generally took the attitude, "You shouldn't own those people in the first
place, so if you have to give up wealth to free them, it's your own fault,"
while the more moderate slaveowners
-----------------
You mean they were only "moderate slaveowners"??

Kill 'em all just for thinking such a thing could EVER be "moderate"!!



took the attitude, "The Constitution
allows slavery, so you have no right to demand that we give up our property
without fair compensation." I'm not sure how much that disconnect over who
should absorb the cost of ending slavery helped to contribute to the
situation that ignited the Civil War, but I have no doubt that it played at
least some role.
------------------------
My great-great-grandfather was a 1st Lt. on Sherman's March to the
Sea, where they burnt down most of Georgia. We have his sword. Good
****ing riddance!!


going to stop being an issue once slavery was abolished. In contrast, the
question of how to handle situations where children want to behave in ways
that pose a serious danger to themselves or a danger to others, or that
otherwise cause problems for others, is an ongoing one.
----------------
Take abusive parents out to the curb and shoot them through the head
and leave them for the garbage.
Steve

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! ;-)

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 "****"! :-)

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.

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!

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.

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?

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! ;-)

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

Just because the parent wants it.

You have a wierd view of parents!

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? ;-)

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?

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! :-)

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!

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!

So much for punishment.

So much for banning spanking! :-)

Doan