Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

Kane (Donald L. Fisher, retired CPS Caseworker and LOBBYIST for laws
against all forms of parental spanking) wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

That puts it all in perspective.

In Lies
Miraculously you and your hyena pack always assert that
each other do not LIE, even when caught "dead to rights" at it.

Why should mutual "personal references" among
the hyena pack mean any more?

Greegor wrote:
Kane -- yer lying again...snip.....

against all forms of parental spanking) wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that.

You had to snip to misrepresent what I said to make that claim.

Don't you have even the dregs (a pun on your name) of a conscience, Gregs?

That puts it all in perspective.

Oh, I see. It's not about what I really said then, but about the
delusions you have that you must keep going by lying through change of
my posted comments by attribution abortion.

Can you restore my comments in full on the subject I was discussing and
still support that I admitted something?

In Lies
Miraculously you and your hyena pack always assert that
each other do not LIE, even when caught "dead to rights" at it.

To what instance currently, preferable in a recent post in this thread,
are you referring?

Why should mutual "personal references" among
the hyena pack mean any more?

Because a lie in these particular circumstances would be immoral.
Unethical.

Now were one of us at risk of our lives I think any lie by commission or
omission to protect the person being targeted would be morally defensible.

You know, that reminds me. I've asked your view on this, and for some
odd reason you won't respond.

Is this too difficult a moral dilemma for you to work out?

Would you tell the absolute truth to a questioner if it meant that the
person they ask about would be at risk of harm to life or limb?

And barring you running yet again, let me ask this more clearly:

Why haven't you answered this question before?

You don't really want to get in another 'use of lethal force by parents'
question, now do you?

There IS such a thing as lying by omission.

For instance, if I asked you what Sock Michael might be wearing at the
moment, would it be a lie to evade and not answer me? Or would you say
that his life or limb would be at risk and you have a moral obligation
not to answer, or to answer incorrectly?

0:-]

Greegor wrote:
Kane (Donald L. Fisher, retired CPS Caseworker and LOBBYIST for laws
against all forms of parental spanking) wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

That puts it all in perspective.
.........snip.....another subject from to the one above.....


Just to show anyone curious what a lying little cowardly sot you are,
here is what I actually said, and it had nothing to do with your inference.

You are addressing Ron, and I'm interjecting my comments before Ron
responds, which he hasn't bothered to do, since he could easily see you
are lying again:

....
You, Greg, to Ron:

All Ken has to do is look through the archives
to see your disagreement with Kane and
your "pact" with him.

I, Kane, to you:

Well, he could, but since Ron already has told him, why would he?

Even funnier is that your old arguments with
Kane about spanking would to some extent
AGREE with what Ken has said!

Of course.

The difference here is not in the subject, but in the character of the
two you are discussing. I have no reason, no evidence, not even a hint,
that Ron has ever lied to me, or about me, or about the subject. He has
expressed his opinion. He has offered reasonable logical argument. He
has referred to research...very ancient research as I recall, that I
cannot disagree with.

He simply hasn't convinced my MY evidence has been overturned thereby.

That is where it stood when we agreed that we had reached the end of
reasoned debate, and neither of us would descend to Donation, or
Greegorishness.

Sometimes debate simply ends with no winner or loser.
.............

As you and anyone that cares to read it, the subject is not the issue in
this instance, but simply the issue of why Ron is not present in the
debate by his own choice, and why and how I support him in this decision.

Have you no conscience at all, Greg?

Kane wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Greg wrote
Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

Kane wrote
No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that.

What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Greg wrote
Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

Kane wrote
No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that.

What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post?

What part of the rest of the post that you've removed by not quoting
fully do you not understand?

The issue at hand, a response to your comments to Ron, was not about the
spanking subject, but about why he would not join in the debate.

Nothing at all to do with the subject.

My explanation had nothing to do with the subject of the debate, but
with why he wasn't joining in.

In addition to your cowardice, and propensity to lie, are you also
language disabled?

There is no admission of anything from me that conforms to your comment,
Greg.

You said, "Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself."

I was not addressing the dispute between them havingto do with the
subject, but simply why Ron would not join in.

I consider Ron to have excellent character, and Ken to not have.

And it's plain that since I said I would not debate the subject with
anyone but Ken at this point, I'm not debating it now, or in the prior
post you partially quoted.

Am I making myself clear?

While they may have been having an ad hom encounter I do not refer to
that as debate. Never have.

It's flaming, or clarification, according to how one wishes to take it.

Ron would not debate with he, or I.

That simple.

Now what have I admitted to, Greg?

That one should not be addressing the other at all, if he truly wishes
to debate the issue with me.

Because even if Ron wanted to join in, my conditions for MY being a
party to it are violated and I wouldn't participate.

Ken alone.

Who we see is very absent, after being caught at a series of lies and
subterfuges.

Not you. Not Ron, just Ken, alone.

Got that yet?

Or were you just pitching one of your little attention garnering fits?

Are you going to say, "gotcha" now and prove my point?

0:-]

Kane (Donald L. Fisher in reference to Ken) wrote
Who we see is very absent, after being
caught at a series of lies and subterfuges.

You try this stupid crap every time somebody is away from the net for a
day.

Kane wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Greg wrote
Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

Kane wrote
No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that.

Greg wrote
What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post?

Would you please answer THE QUESTION?

Greegor wrote:
Kane (Donald L. Fisher in reference to Ken) wrote
Who we see is very absent, after being
caught at a series of lies and subterfuges.

You try this stupid crap

Now now, watch yer language there, accuser of other's useing obscenity.


every time somebody is away from the net for a
day.

I have this deja vu thing going on. I seem to remember a couple of
posters running a number here when Dan was gone for awhile...let me see
if I can remember who.........nope, slipped my mind.

R R R R R R R R R

Kane wrote
The difference here is not in the subject, but in
the character of the two you are discussing.

Greg wrote
Thank you for admitting the dispute between Ron and Ken
is an ad hominem argument and not even about the ""subject"" itself.

Kane wrote
No thanks needed, since it's obvious I didn't do that.

Greg wrote
What part of "not in the subject, but in the character" didn't you post?

Would you please answer THE QUESTION?

I can't since it presumes a condition that does not exist. That IS my
final answer.

I made no claim that the debate was about character, but only about
spanking research. The comment I made, that you aborted the context of,
consisted of say WHY Ron didn't wish to post.

And it really had nothing to do with your question that presume Ad Hom
being "the debate." It never was.

Not in THIS thread, by me.

I'm still awaiting my honorable mmmmphhhhh opponent's pleasure, and
his answer to my challenge rather than pretending it's his turn to
challenge.

Next question.