If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Greegor wrote: Kane wrote Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert? Nope. But we've loved seeing yours. Via the online court system records in Iowa, and your 'testimony' to the HW&MC hearing, and your ghosted 'Pleading' for the mother. Hot stuff. So, have you an argument to make with my claims and comments concerning spanking alternatives, or are you here to harass rather than argue? I offer you argument -- debate -- constantly, and you run. Ever notice? 0:- 0:-] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert? He is also an "published" researcher and yet unable to read a simple chart! ;-) Doan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Straus and Mouradian's 1998 study divided mothers who spanked into three categories depending on whether they "never," "sometimes," or "often" spanked as a result of having "lost it." The outcomes for mothers who sometimes spanked as a result of having "lost it" were significantly worse than those for mothers who never spanked, and the outcomes for those who often spanked as a result of having "lost it" were even worse still. But the outcomes for mothers who never spanked as a result of having "lost it" were very close to those for mothers who never spanked at all - slightly worse, but either within the margin of error or too close to attach much meaning in a study where self-selection bias is present. Note that that study controlled for only one of several factors that I believe makes a significant (if not huge) difference in how effective or dangerous spanking is, yet it ended up with a group of spanking mothers with results extremely close to the results of mothers who never spanked. Also, it is important to note that Straus and Mouradian (1998) also found that, among these mothers, the more non-cp used, the worse the outcomes. In other words, the non-cp methods were no better than spanking. AF |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
"0:-" wrote in message ps.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: "0:-" wrote in message ps.com... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: If parents have completely unrealistic expectations, the results can be tragic, especially if the parents feel like it's their duty to force their children to live up to their unrealistic expecations no matter how harsh a punishment is required. We are in agreement. And here in this newsgroup, aps, I have seen again and again, pro spankers discuss circumstances where they would spank, and demonstrating they have extremely unrealistic expectations of children. The idea that any child, for instance, under the age of 12 or so, would "willfully disobey." It's nonsense. They are following natural imperatives to explore the universe. All an aware parent needs to do is learn how to question and investigate and when the parent has figured out (even if wrong) some probable natural imperative the child is reacting to, simply show them how to get their appropriately. Wanted behavior replacing unwanted behavior. This isn't rocket science, and no child with parents that can figure this out is "spanked." It's too damned obvious to a parent that can think, and is compassionate (even in the absence of exact evidence) that the child does not need spanking to learn. My personal experience from when I was a child proves beyond any possible doubt that you are wrong about this. It appears we are off to a bad start. Are you sure that your personal experience is not in conflict with facts from other sources? And the personal experience, in fact, should be the only arbiter of 'the truth?" I'll take just a few more minutes to clear up some possible confusion. Your central thesis here was, "The idea that any child, for instance, under the age of 12 or so, would 'willfully disobey.' It's nonsense." I went ahead and quoted your expansion on that theme before I started my reply, but it should have been clear that the focus of my reply was on the age at which children can willfully disobey. I know I wasn't always a typical child growing up, or even all that close to being one. But if I could make deliberate choices to do things I knew I'd been told not to at age six, then either I was able to do it at HALF the age of other children, or your claim is ridiculous. And I am not willing to believe I was THAT different from other children, or that I radically reinvented two separate memories for no good reason. Any valid theoretical model has to account for the ENTIRE range of people's personal experiences. If you were an honest, reasonably openminded searcher for truth, your response to seeing persoanl experiences that clash with your theoretical models would be to try to figure out what about your theoretical models is - or at least might be - off target. But instead, you seem to reject the personal experiences of anyone whose personal experiences don't fit your theoretical models as being impossible just because they don't fit your models. When you see what you want to see and ignore or reject anything that doesn't fit your prejudices, it doesn't matter if you have fifty years of experience or even if you had five hundred years of experience. All the extra time gave you was more time to have collected stories where people's personal experiences support your biases while at the same time ignoring or rejecting any stories of people's experiences that clash with your biases. And the fact that you use your education and experience as an excuse to reject what other people tell you from their personal experiences just makes it even harder for you to see the entire truth. As for your education, too much trust in education can be dangerous when it leaves a person feeling like he already has all the answers, and like anything in the real world that doesn't fit what he learned in school must be wrong. When reality and education collide, a wise person will recognize the collision as an indication that what he learned in school is, at the very least, not the entire picture of the truth. It's frustrating when a person of your intelligence and experience isn't willing to listen and try to be genuinely objective. You know things that I don't, and I have experiences that you could learn from, and putting those together could help both of us develop a better understanding. But when you refuse to genuinely listen, and refuse to accept any possibility that your understanding of the world is less than complete, trying to discuss things with you is mostly just a waste of time. Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. There is always the possibility I've been wrong...why, back in 75 I can recall that I was...well, that's a long story. Want to start over? Start with my statement you follow your claim with. Thanks. Kane Sometimes children simply decide that something that they've been told not to do is enough fun that they want to do it anyhow. Granted, if parents take enough time, they can often find a way to redirect the children's choices by offering them something that's almost as much fun, or maybe even more fun, that they wouldn't have to feel guilty about doing. But that doesn't mean the children's disobedience isn't willful. When I read your claim, I started thinking back trying to find the first occasions when I can be absolutely sure that I willfully disobeyed my parents - where I knew I wasn't allowed to do something but made a deliberate choice to do it anyhow. I can come up with two situations when I was no older than six, and possibly younger. (I know I couldn't have been older because we moved to a different house when I was six, but beyond that, I have no way of pinpointing my age.) One situation involved playing with the shower curtain in a way that had the bottom of the curtain in the tub but had it draped over the side hanging over the outside so my younger brother and I could put water in the part of the curtain where it sagged over the outside. (It's kind of hard to explain.) My brother and I had been told repeatedly not to do it because my parents were afraid we'd break the shower curtain. But I couldn't figure out how what we were doing could break it, and I knew I was being too careful to spill water outside the tub, so I wasn't inclined to give up my fun and obey my parents. As it turned out, the shower curtain did break, and my brother and I got in trouble. (The flaw in my reasoning was that I didn't even begin to comprehend that the place that would break was where the curtain was held up by hooks through holes, far above my head. Now I can recognize that the stress on the holes was vastly greater than the stress on the part I was paying attention to as a little kid.) The other early occasion I remember involved vitamin pills. We didn't generally have candy around, but chewable vitamin pills tasted good, and there were times when I snuck extra ones even though I knew I wasn't supposed to. I'll strongly agree that a lot of things young children do are caused by things other than willful disobedience. Sometimes they don't even understand that they are doing something wrong. Other times, they forget about rules they are supposed to obey - especially if they get carried away with what they are doing. But the idea that children have to be around age 12 before they are capable of making willful choices to disobey is completely preposterous. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Doan wrote: On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote: Kane wrote Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert? He is also an "published" researcher Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published. and yet unable to read a simple chart! ;-) Show your proof. Doan Aline/Alina |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote:
Doan wrote: On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote: Kane wrote Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert? He is also an "published" researcher Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published. So you never claimed that you are a researcher? ;-) and yet unable to read a simple chart! ;-) Show your proof. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...84d67c ce3614 QED! Doan Aline/Alina Anne From Dreamland |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
refuse to genuinely listen, and refuse to accept any possibility that your understanding of the world is less than complete, trying to discuss things with you is mostly just a waste of time. Hahaha! Don't waste your time, Nathan. Remember, you are talking to an anti-spanking zealotS! Doan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Teenagers faced with spankings
Doan wrote: On 9 Dec 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On 9 Dec 2006, Greegor wrote: Kane wrote Hey, despite my education in the field and 50 years of examining this and my experience throughout that time, much of it professional as well as personal, I would not offer such a blanket statement as that. Can we see your resume' since you put yourself forth as an expert? He is also an "published" researcher Whoops! Lie. Never said that. I simply said I was published. So you never claimed that you are a researcher? ;-) I never claimed I was a published researcher, so you are lying above, as usual, Doan. and yet unable to read a simple chart! ;-) Show your proof. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...84d67c ce3614 QED! And I pointed out that I had done a quick calculation in my head and missed some entries from the chart. So, Doan, when you claim I am "unable" to read a chart, you are lying again. I certainly can read it, and like anyone else I can make an error and admit it. Anyone else but you, liar. You never admit your mistakes, and you come back and repeat them just as you are doing now. Here IS my post that responds to your current lie, with my actual comments, rather than your lies. Remember this post, stupid lying monkeyboy? Your tried the same lie yet again. The same one you are trying today. You are dishonorable. 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, 0:- wrote: Doan wrote: .....and continues to compound both his honest errors, AND his deliberate lies.... Hihih! Kane is using his brillant strategy of EXPOSING HIS STUPIDITY to the public again! [snip] That is indeed a lie, because the link he provided doesn't said that. He took it out of context, just like you did, to give the impression that is the rate. As I have already corrected him, the 0.57% is a "indicator", not the actual rate! I already conceded that, stupid. You just don't understand the language, or the meaning. You lack comprehension, or you are a liar. Take your pick. I chose both, in your case. Hahaha! So now you conceded that you LIED! {snip} I've read it! The meaning of that sentence has a totally different meaning from the original one. You are playing with context again, Doan. Tsk. Of course! That was my the accusation, STUPID! TAKING THINGS OUT-OF-CONTEXT!!! {snip} There are not 13 missing states, stupid. There are seven. Look at the chart. Stop thinking you are so puckering clevery you stupid monkeyboy. 13 states had DIFFICULTY, not 'didn't report.' You presumed, like an ass. Or a monkey. Hahaha! Only seven??? Are you this STUPID? How many states actually reported? Let's see if we can find out. The chart shows 51 (including DC) and only 12 having NOT reported. Some of which reported in prior years, just not 2004. Now seven turn into "only 12 having NOT reported"!!! TALK ABOUT STUPIDITY!!! http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../table3_21.htm 39 then reported, according to this chart. 84.2% of 39 would give you something like the correct answer, stupid. 84.2% of 38 is 31.996! Hahaha! EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY to the public again. Number Reporting 28 35 38 39 38 Number Met Standard * 16 22 23 31 32 Number Met Standard * 57.1 62.9 60.5 79.5 84.2 32.838 of the states (33 of course) met or exceeded the compliance indicator. Having problem with math again, publisher Kane? ;-) 33/39 is 84.6%, STUPID! But that's NOT the issue, stupid. Though you would love to have everyone believe that is, and that was a claim by me that somehow indicated the abuse rate nationaly by foster parents. So now you are not talking nationally!!! So all this stuff you and Ron brought up are IRRELEVANT! ;-) It's still disproportionately LOWER than bio parents for the simple reason one hell of a lot more, proportionally, of the parents in this country HAVE NOT REPORTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, as to their rate of child abuse, hence we don't know. Hihihi! Now, we don't know!!! But every indication is that bio parents do abuse, and they are NOT caught for it, in HUGE numbers, since they can't be accounted for as foster parents can. Is that why some states (13) are having "difficulty" reporting them? Boy, you are STUPID! The amount of what I call 'spontaneously' discovered abuse, that is it was not KNOWN to CPS until it surfaced some other way than by reporting to them, is rampant. NOT SO with foster parents. CPS usually is the first to know. Other cases come up mostly by police reports. Or by adults discussing their abuse as children that was NEVER revealed when they were young. The ONLY figure that matters, is the abuse rate of foster's versus the abuse rate of bios that are caught. Comparisons to wild populations is a thinking and research error of considerably proportion. Hihihi! Why don't you look through you 30 YEARS collection of study, Kane? Can you show me a single study by a reputable research in which they said abuse in foster care is less than the general population? Hihihi! Let's clear the air here, first. Hahaha! Hiding your STUPIDITY again? You are taking a mistake in count, that I later corrected and pretending it's a lie. I simply didn't notice the first count having been written by me. Hihihi! In other words, you can't even read and understand a simple chart! Nope, I had calculated in my head quickly, and missed a couple of entries that had been sending in data until 2003....the missed the final year for some reason. You didn't notice that? Yet you claimed to have accumlated research studies for 30 years!!! Yep. You even have the nerve to claim that you are a published researcher! YOU ARE STUPID!!! Liar. I never said I was a published researcher. Just published. You can't read but you sure can lie. Doan You got caught in an error, Doan, and being the little dishonorable monkeyboy, you can't simply admit it like a man, not being one. I even describe HOW I make an error and you continue for years to call it a "lie." You are one sick little ****. But I knew that the first post of yours I ever read. 0:- And no, there are no such reputable research reports because reputable researchers know that the actual count on the general population is about as discernible as trying to determine how many out of the entire population has an ulcer. Only the reported ulcers can be counted. The rest, and we know they exist because people have ulcers long before they are aware of them, are not as yet countable. Rather like abuse that goes unreported, because we simply don't know about them. Parents are known to deliberately hide abuse and neglect of their children. We find out only when it finally comes to our attention, and even then, often the finding out comes when the child grows up and is an adult and reports it. Notice the debacle with sexual abuse by those in authority that is popping up very late in the cycle? No, Doan, those 'researchers' that attempt, if there are any, to claim that they KNOW that fosters abuse at a greater rate are either stupid or liars; Doananators. 0:- Doan Doan Aline/Alina Anne From Dreamland |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More Teenagers Seek Help From Psychiatrists | Jan | Kids Health | 29 | April 23rd 06 05:53 PM |
Third of US teenagers are unfit | Roman Bystrianyk | Kids Health | 1 | January 3rd 06 02:57 AM |
Teenagers' behaviour 'worsening' | Roman Bystrianyk | Kids Health | 1 | September 20th 04 12:12 PM |
PA: Erie Co., CYS failure-Busy chasin' spankings? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | June 14th 04 04:19 PM |
Why are so many teenagers so foul mouthed and disgusting? | [email protected] | General | 8 | April 13th 04 06:59 PM |