We don need no steenkin' CPS.

On Fri, 19 May 2006, Doug wrote:

One year does not a sample make, Doug.

You claimed "EVERY YEAR", so one year is all it takes to disprove your
claim. In fact, it was the data provided by you! In other words, you
provided the data that disproved your own claim. How STUPID can you
be? ;-)

Hi, Doan!

In fact, DHHS has never reported, in any year, anything close to 1,000 child
fatalities due to physical abuse. The year quoted is one of the lowest.
And DHHS has never reported in NCANDS data numbers of fatal physical abuse
incidents that began with spanking.

Kane would have proven himself wrong if he pasted any of the NCANDS data
from any year since they began publishing Child Maltreatment.

The average of the years would be less that the 421 reported for 2004.

Thanks, Doug. I am not famliar with the NCANDS data. I do, however,
familiar with the New England Journal of Medicine. I just can't find
anything regarding physical abuse that began with spanking in their
database. Maybe, like that extinct fish Kane mentioned, it will show
up one day. ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 19 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
One year does not a sample make, Doug.

You claimed "EVERY YEAR", so one year is all it takes to disprove your
claim. In fact, it was the data provided by you! In other words, you
provided the data that disproved your own claim. How STUPID can you
be? ;-)

Hi, Doan!

In fact, DHHS has never reported, in any year, anything close to 1,000 child
fatalities due to physical abuse. The year quoted is one of the lowest.
And DHHS has never reported in NCANDS data numbers of fatal physical abuse
incidents that began with spanking.

Kane would have proven himself wrong if he pasted any of the NCANDS data
from any year since they began publishing Child Maltreatment.

The average of the years would be less that the 421 reported for 2004.

Gee, what about that?

Now how are you doing on the post I put here today estimating that real
incidences of abuse are 15 times higher than official reports.

That was by comparing the latter to the finding of a very large gallup
poll of parents WHO THEMSELVES ADMITTED TO MORE ABUSE THAN THE OFFICIAL
FIGURES.

Gallup poll? Wow, that's very scientific! ;-) How many of these parents
admit to fatally abuse their kids, Kane?

So let's minimize those figures of abuse as much as you can while you can.

Let's show your stupidity in public again. ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
One year does not a sample make, Doug.

You claimed "EVERY YEAR", so one year is all it takes to disprove your
claim. In fact, it was the data provided by you! In other words, you
provided the data that disproved your own claim. How STUPID can you
be? ;-)
Hi, Doan!

In fact, DHHS has never reported, in any year, anything close to 1,000 child
fatalities due to physical abuse. The year quoted is one of the lowest.
And DHHS has never reported in NCANDS data numbers of fatal physical abuse
incidents that began with spanking.

Kane would have proven himself wrong if he pasted any of the NCANDS data
from any year since they began publishing Child Maltreatment.

The average of the years would be less that the 421 reported for 2004.
Gee, what about that?

Now how are you doing on the post I put here today estimating that real
incidences of abuse are 15 times higher than official reports.

That was by comparing the latter to the finding of a very large gallup
poll of parents WHO THEMSELVES ADMITTED TO MORE ABUSE THAN THE OFFICIAL
FIGURES.

Gallup poll? Wow, that's very scientific! ;-)

Actually if well conducted, yes, it can meet those higher standards.

I suspect, for instance, that it was not self selecting. And that folks
were asked in a bevy of other questions that led up to that particular one.

How many of these parents
admit to fatally abuse their kids, Kane?

Well, if you aren't too stupid you know that it's highly unlikely a
single one would. In fact, my best bet is the question wasn't asked, or
it would very likely have been reported. What do you think, smart little
monkey?

On the other hand if you aren't too stupid you could figure out that if
15 times more than the official count ARE in fact abusing their
children, we might just have a slight uptick in unreported fatalities
caused by parents as well.

Let's assume, just for the sake of logic and intelligence, that those
that would lie about killing their children would also, when it comes to
reporting to the authorities (as the poll would indicate) are fifteen
times less likely to admit.

Do you think murderers are LESS likely to report truthfully or more?

Show us your intelligence. 0:-

So let's minimize those figures of abuse as much as you can while you can.

Let's show your stupidity in public again. ;-)

Oh, then you ARE minimizing. As usual. Thanks for the admission. That's
new for you, isn't it?

Doan

Doan will droan on endlessly on ANY point but the one he's lost on. He
immediately stops arguing when proven wrong (without, of course, like
the nice folks on the Gallup poll) admitting he was exposed for stupid
and or a liar.

But then, I could hardly expect him to admit to anything if he things
parents the murder would be asked, and if asked, admit to it in a poll.

Isn't he cute? Brilliant? For a monkeyboy?

0:-

REF:
http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/CANreport.pdf
"Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) recorded 1,300 children killed by
abuse or neglect.22 Other studies show that
the true number is much higher. In
California, an exhaustive review discovered
that, in 1996 and 1997, the number of children
who died from abuse and neglect was
nearly three times the number reported
through the official NCANDS system.23 In
Georgia, when a state abuse and neglect
fatality review board was instituted, official
reports of deaths from abuse and neglect
jumped 76 percent from the previous year.24
An article in the Journal of the American
Medical Association concluded that North
Carolina had systematically undercounted
deaths in the state from abuse and neglect
by a factor of three.25
The National Center on Child Fatality
Review concludes in a 2001 report released
by the Justice Department that “an estimated
2,000 children in the United States die of
child abuse and neglect each year.”26"

You should read this, Doan. Will it explain criminal thinking and the
reasons for it?

Minimizing child deaths seems an odd activity for someone that promotes,
about the use of corporal punishment, "let them make up their own mind"
whether or not to use it.

Don't you think?

0:-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

WHY claim the info is in NEJM if it is NOT?
Was the inaccuracy deliberate or accidental?

On Fri, 19 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doan wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, 0:- wrote:

Doug wrote:
One year does not a sample make, Doug.

You claimed "EVERY YEAR", so one year is all it takes to disprove your
claim. In fact, it was the data provided by you! In other words, you
provided the data that disproved your own claim. How STUPID can you
be? ;-)
Hi, Doan!

In fact, DHHS has never reported, in any year, anything close to 1,000 child
fatalities due to physical abuse. The year quoted is one of the lowest.
And DHHS has never reported in NCANDS data numbers of fatal physical abuse
incidents that began with spanking.

Kane would have proven himself wrong if he pasted any of the NCANDS data
from any year since they began publishing Child Maltreatment.

The average of the years would be less that the 421 reported for 2004.
Gee, what about that?

Now how are you doing on the post I put here today estimating that real
incidences of abuse are 15 times higher than official reports.

That was by comparing the latter to the finding of a very large gallup
poll of parents WHO THEMSELVES ADMITTED TO MORE ABUSE THAN THE OFFICIAL
FIGURES.

Gallup poll? Wow, that's very scientific! ;-)

Actually if well conducted, yes, it can meet those higher standards.

I suspect, for instance, that it was not self selecting. And that folks
were asked in a bevy of other questions that led up to that particular one.

How many of these parents
admit to fatally abuse their kids, Kane?

Well, if you aren't too stupid you know that it's highly unlikely a
single one would. In fact, my best bet is the question wasn't asked, or
it would very likely have been reported. What do you think, smart little
monkey?

On the other hand if you aren't too stupid you could figure out that if
15 times more than the official count ARE in fact abusing their
children, we might just have a slight uptick in unreported fatalities
caused by parents as well.

Let's assume, just for the sake of logic and intelligence, that those
that would lie about killing their children would also, when it comes to
reporting to the authorities (as the poll would indicate) are fifteen
times less likely to admit.

Do you think murderers are LESS likely to report truthfully or more?

Show us your intelligence. 0:-

So let's minimize those figures of abuse as much as you can while you can.

Let's show your stupidity in public again. ;-)

Oh, then you ARE minimizing. As usual. Thanks for the admission. That's
new for you, isn't it?

Doan

Doan will droan on endlessly on ANY point but the one he's lost on. He
immediately stops arguing when proven wrong (without, of course, like
the nice folks on the Gallup poll) admitting he was exposed for stupid
and or a liar.

But then, I could hardly expect him to admit to anything if he things
parents the murder would be asked, and if asked, admit to it in a poll.

Isn't he cute? Brilliant? For a monkeyboy?

0:-

REF:
http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/CANreport.pdf
"Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(NCANDS) recorded 1,300 children killed by
abuse or neglect.22 Other studies show that
the true number is much higher. In
California, an exhaustive review discovered
that, in 1996 and 1997, the number of children
who died from abuse and neglect was
nearly three times the number reported
through the official NCANDS system.23 In
Georgia, when a state abuse and neglect
fatality review board was instituted, official
reports of deaths from abuse and neglect
jumped 76 percent from the previous year.24
An article in the Journal of the American
Medical Association concluded that North
Carolina had systematically undercounted
deaths in the state from abuse and neglect
by a factor of three.25
The National Center on Child Fatality
Review concludes in a 2001 report released
by the Justice Department that “an estimated
2,000 children in the United States die of
child abuse and neglect each year.”26"

You should read this, Doan. Will it explain criminal thinking and the
reasons for it?

Minimizing child deaths seems an odd activity for someone that promotes,
about the use of corporal punishment, "let them make up their own mind"
whether or not to use it.

Don't you think?

0:-

Hahaha! Thanks, Kane. You just proved your STUPIDITY again. ;-)
Anywhere in there did it say that these abuses started with spanking
that "escalated"?

Doan

On 19 May 2006, Greegor wrote:

WHY claim the info is in NEJM if it is NOT?
Was the inaccuracy deliberate or accidental?

It's a classic case of appealing to authority. They are counting
on the fact that not many people will take the time to check up
on the fact. Remebered the claim Kane must regarding the Embry
study? ;-)

Doan

I did not say that the anti-spanking advocate was lying. Name-calling is
your trademark --everyone you disagree with is a liar. Why would I think
they are lying? I have nothing to tell them.

Well, I'm going to call you a liar AGAIN, Doug, and I'm going to prove it
to you immediately.

You say, "I did not say that the anti-spanking advocate was lying."

I did NOT say you did, liar. I asked a question. This one:

"Do you think the authors were lying? If so why not TELL
THEM."

Hi, Kane,

....And I answered the question . . . that one, later on in the same post --
the one to which you reply here.

You very carefully did NOT answer it, while appearing to. Do you think
they are liars, not what did you say, but what do you think?

See my answer, which I have already given you in the post to which you now
respond. It will show up as quoted in your reply, further down the page.
Watch for it.

What I have shown clearly is that USDHHS data disproves your claim. The
NEJM data proported to back your claim can not be found.

One year does not a sample make, Doug.

In 1995, 996 TOTAL children died as the result of all child abuse and
neglect categories. More than half of the fatalities were due to neglect.
Obviously, 1,000 child fatalities due to physical abuse which began with
spanking did not occur during this year.

In 1996, it is estimated that there were 1,077 fatalities due to abuse or
neglect in all categories in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
More than half of these fatalities occurred as the result of neglect.
Obviously, 1,000 children did not die due to physical abuse alone that began
with spanking.

In 1997, NCANDS estimated that 1,196 children from all forms of child
maltreatment combined.

In 2000, 1,200 total child fatalities were attributed to all forms of child
maltreatment combined, the majority of which fell under the neglect
category. 32 children were killed by foster caregivers during that year.
27.8% of the children died from physical abuse...333 children.

In 2001, 1,300 total child fatalities were attributed to all forms of child
abuse/neglect, again with the majority being neglected. 18 children were
killed by foster caregivers during that year. 26.3% of the children died
from physical abuse -- or 341 children.

In 2002, an estimated 1,400 child fatalities were attributed to ALL forms of
child maltreatment. Physical abuse accounted for 29.9% of the fatalities,
or 418 children.

In 2003, an estimated 1,500 child fatalities were attributed to ALL forms of
child maltreatment. 28.4%, or 426 children, died from physical abuse.

Here is a breakdown of recent child fatalities due to physical abuse.

2004 421
2003 426
2002 418
2001 341

Any way you can extract 1,000 fatalities due to physical abuse that began
with spanking out of those years? Any year?

No. USDHHS data, which you cited, proves your contention that 1,000
children die of physical abuse beginning with spanking to be false.

You should look at your original post and those that followed. You
quoted the unsupported claim then YOU went to the USDHHS site to cut and
paste data YOU claimed supported the claim.

Nope I pointed there to show SOME of the available data. Do YOU suppose CP
escalating to abuse and deaths only happened in ONE YEAR?

In all of the years shown by USDHHS data, never once did the total number of
children who died as the result of physical abuse reach 1/2 of the 1,000
fatalities due to physical abuse that began with spanking.

It has been shown that your claim the USDHHS data showed 1,000 child
fatalities occurring as the result of abuse that esculated from spanking
was clearly disproven by the data itself.

No, it does no such thing. It's simply one sample. What I do note though
is that you are pursuing this as though the issue is minimal.

I have provided samples from 7 separate years. Not once did the total
number of children who died as the result of physical abuse make up 1/2 of
the 1,000 you falsely claim -- using USDHHS as a source -- died from
physical abuse that began with spanking.

YOU cited USDHHS and pasted their data, falsely claiming it supported
your claim. It was shown that that data clearly disproved your claim.
You got caught.

No, Sue Lawrence did, and the interviewer that quoted her by not fact
checking. How does that really excuse all those instances where CP did in
fact "esculate"[sic]? Just something you want to ignore.

No, you cited and pasted USDHHS data for 2004 in your first post and then
made the statement that 1,000 children died as the result of physical abuse
which began with spanking. You were wrong. You were caught at it.


If you want the average of USDHHS data in these categories, you will find
it to be very close to the 2004 statistics. I can post all of the years
if you wish. Each year's data will conclusively prove that your
contention is clearly false. None of the data in neither of the years
would support your false contention that 1,000 children died in a given
year from physical abuse that esculated from spanking.

How many such death from "esculated"[sic] cp would suffice for you to
start giving serious thought to this being a problem, Doug?

1 child is too many.

YOU claimed that all deadly physical abuse started with spanking.

I claimed NO SUCH THING, LIAR!

I claimed that most did.

Actually, you claimed that twice as many children died from physical child
abuse that began with spanking as there were children that died from all
physical abuse.

While polls may show 40% of citizens do not believe in spanking their
children, it is a far cry to assume these people would favor a law that
told other parents what to do with their children.

The number grows. It does not even have to BE a majority to get a law
passed.

While a minority of Americans have chosen not to spank, most of them would
not presume for a moment that the government should force other parents to
not to spank.

HERE COMES YOUR ANSWER:

Are THEY LYING?

That's your department -- name calling -- so you may want to answer the
question. My answer is, no, they are not lying.

Greegor wrote:
WHY claim the info is in NEJM if it is NOT?
Was the inaccuracy deliberate or accidental?

If you can read and not lie at that same time you know I quoted someone
else's article.

As far as I know, fact checking, is not a requirement to quote someone
else. If you have a beef with the information tendered then your beef IS
with the source of the facts claimed.

I am not the source.

The fact that four of you have attacked me should tell you something
about ethics of you all.

I've invited you to write the author, and included her email address.
I've pointed out that the author quoted Sue Lawrence.

I believe I included the e-mail address for her as well, inviting those
of you that said she lied, calling her a liar in effect, to take it up
with her.

Apparently no one has the nerve to do so, demanding I engage her and
make her prove her claim.

Well, I did not call her a liar. Some of you have.

Get it yet?

As for the existing information I've provided, you are simply minimizing
those deaths, those fatalities of children at the hands of their
parents, but arguing over the totals.

In other words, you are dancing in the blood of however many DID die.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Doug wrote:
...snip the avoidance.....


Some time back in this thread I posted this.

I'm waiting for a response.

"Do you think the NEJM is likely to lie, Doug?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...urcetype=HWCIT
http://tinyurl.com/nkxtz

"Homicide is the leading cause of infant deaths due to injury,
accounting for almost one third of such deaths in 1996.1 Among children
and adolescents, homicides are most likely to occur in the first year of
life, with similar or higher rates only during later adolescence.1,2,3,4
More than 80 percent of documented homicides in very young children can
be viewed as fatal child abuse, and there is strong evidence that both
homicides and fatal cases of child abuse are undercounted.5,6,7 In
addition, almost one fourth of infants discharged from acute care
facilities with disabilities due to injury are considered to have been
intentionally injured, almost always as a result of child abuse; in an
additional 8 percent of cases, intentionality is undetermined.8 Risk
factors that can be identified in the prenatal period must be
established both to identify infants at high risk for homicide and to
develop timely and effective interventions." "

Now you may want to run back to NCANDS but what you and others are
trying to hide is that not all fatalities by abuse are IN that data.
They are collecting CPS data.

Figure it out, stupid.

0:-





--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Some time back in this thread I posted this.

I'm waiting for a response.

"Do you think the NEJM is likely to lie, Doug?

Hi, Kane,

No. Calling people "liars" is your M.O.

Nonetheless, NEJM has published nothing about 1,000 children dying each year
because of physical abuse that started with spanking. Neither did USDHHS.

The subject of this thread was your claim, citing USDHHS figures that
actually proved the opposite, that 1,000 children died yearly because of
physical abuse that began with spanking.

That is not correct. The USDHHS data you cut and pasted proved it not to be
true.

In your crusade against spanking, you posted misinformation. You were
caught at it.


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...urcetype=HWCIT
http://tinyurl.com/nkxtz

"Homicide is the leading cause of infant deaths due to injury, accounting
for almost one third of such deaths in 1996.1 Among children and
adolescents, homicides are most likely to occur in the first year of life,
with similar or higher rates only during later adolescence.1,2,3,4 More
than 80 percent of documented homicides in very young children can be
viewed as fatal child abuse, and there is strong evidence that both
homicides and fatal cases of child abuse are undercounted.5,6,7 In
addition, almost one fourth of infants discharged from acute care
facilities with disabilities due to injury are considered to have been
intentionally injured, almost always as a result of child abuse; in an
additional 8 percent of cases, intentionality is undetermined.8 Risk
factors that can be identified in the prenatal period must be established
both to identify infants at high risk for homicide and to develop timely
and effective interventions." "

This cut and paste also says nothing about 1,000 child fatalities due to
abuse that began with spanking.

Your misstatement stands unsubstantiated. False. Not true. Bogus.

Now you may want to run back to NCANDS but what you and others are trying
to hide is that not all fatalities by abuse are IN that data. They are
collecting CPS data.

YOU are the one who pasted NCANDS data in your post claiming that 1,000
children died annually as the result of abuse that started with spanking.
The NCANDS data actually disproved your claim.

Your claim remains unsubstantiated.