What has hapenned to this group?

Well said!

Doan

On 8 Jan 2006, Ron wrote:

Historically, corporal punishment has been a staple of child rearing.
20,000 years or more of parents correcting inappropriate behaviors by
using natures own behavior modification system. And it has worked. We
are where we are as a species because we use those methods that prove
reliable, and those things that are a natural part of being human. Pain
is the best behavior modifier ever known. It is built into the human
body and we depend on it every minute of every day to tell us when we
are doing something that we should not be doing. It works, period.
Always has, always will. 20,000 years of testing, and while its not
quite perfect, as nothing is, it is effective.

Spanking is one of the tools available to parents. One, of many. As
with anyone who is shaping something, one must use the correct tool at
the proper time to achieve the result wanted. Remove the tool from the
tool box and you either dont get a finnished product or not the one you
intended to make when you started. And not every tool is necessary for
every child. Some tools you may never use, some you may use once, and
some may be required on an ongoing basis.

But, as with anything, corporal punishment has its place and time.
There are times when it is effective, and times when it is
counterproductive. A good parent learns to distinguish between the two,
and apply the best correction technique for the situation. Some people
never learn this subtle lesson, hence we get child abuse or out of
control children. Neither of those is good, for either the child or for
society. No matter one's resons for having children, our society
demands that we do our best to raise them to be responsible members.
When we fail to do so then the child pay's the bulk of the price for
our failure, not us.

As for your having fostered children, well so have I. More than 200 of
them over the last 15 years, well Corporal Punishment is
counterproductive in most cases when dealing with children in the
system. Most of them have already been abused in one way or another,
and could view corporal punishment as an extension of that abuse. The
objective of foster care is to prevent that type of thing, and
therefore corporal punishment is not an option, nor should it be.

I have seen Kane and others here quote studies that say that the vast
number of individuals in our nations prisons come from spanking
households. OK, this may be true, but to pin that group of individuals
criminal behaviors and background on whether their parents spanked them
or not as a child is like saying that someone is a carpenter rather
than a banker because they got toys rather than money for Christmas as
a kid. Both are nonsensical analogies

We can debate the pro's and cons of spanking all we like here. We all
have our opinions one way or the other (and some of us even admit it),
but to state absolutes such as "spanking is violence", or "spanking is
hitting" shows that the individual making that statement does not have
a very good grasp of the concepts or realities of the discussion.

Ron

There are and always have been individuals that should be kept away
from children. Difficulties have arisen because there is big money to
be made from expanding the potential pool in a society composed largely
of strangers.

In a highly mobile society, people do not know their neighbors. In the
United States, they don't trust the government and, for the most part.
While it has gone up and down, trust in the national government has
been declining for the past 40 years.

Heavily in debt because of fooling wars, social meddling, glib liberal
promises of a promised land, and heavy doses of conservative
propaganda, government is seen as more problem than solution. This
makes it much easier for those prone to abuse to become foster parents,
child welfare workers, schoolteachers, and assume positions as role
models. Most real abusers play with kids' minds rather than engage in
physical abuse.

When the whole bureaucratic mess collapses, most probably from a lack
of public support, all that will be left is parents and kids. Some of
those parents will be good. Others will be bad. Meanwhile, the world
will continue to go 'round.

kathleen wrote:
Opinions wrote:
Abuse takes many forms. Truly bad parents can turn anything into
abuse. As you implied, they can even shop counselors until they find
one that agrees with their perspective. Abuse generally begins when
parents are unable to get beyond themselves and their needs.
Mistreatment may be verbal, physical, or psychological. Often the
greatest damage done to children is psychological. Yet, its effects
are difficult to prove until long after the damage is done.

I doubt that George W. Bush was physically abused as a child. More
likely the abuse he received was in never being held accountable for
his actions. Whether it was a drug abuse problem or running a business
venture into the ground, there was always someone around to get him out
of this or that disaster. Paperwork disappeared; witnesses
conveniently forgot. Some individuals reportedly died to save George's
good name. Now, for the first time in his life, there is no one able
to rush to his rescue. Being abandoned by his own political party, he
will be left to twist in the political wind.

In a very tragic way, an overly comfortable lifestyle and the right
family name can be the worst form of abuse for children. George Bush
is not alone in this regard. Michael Skakel (belatedly convicted of
brutally murdering Martha Moxley with a golf club) is a good example.
Even the police made incriminating evidence disappear. They went so
far as to claim the recently arrived tutor did it! Then, that was
nothing new since people had been covering for the Skakels for longer
that Michael had been alive. Michael's cousin Ted Kennedy (who left
Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chappaquiddick while he sobered up) is
another example. What should have been at least a manslaughter
conviction disappeared in the crocodile tears of a mea culpa plea on
national television.

The good news is that physical abuse is often more easily spotted than
other form of ill-treatment. The bad news is that other forms of abuse
are not so easily spotted until someone dies.


Thank you. Good report and good insight.

The main problem is that Psychiatry is about abusing
the abused, as is DCF. Neither can make any money if
the victim is not defined as the perp.

Even if you don't abuse your children, the abusive grandparents
can seek to destroy their children by destroying and harming
their grandchildren. (False DCF allegations).

Some people never let go of their victims. This is the definition
of sociopath.

My own "mother" invented for me that I showed up at her
house and "threatened to slit my own throat."

She made that up entirely in her own clearly very sick head.

Throats were always her main theme.

Now my kids are with this maniac, who also told the DCF
that I threatened to kill my own kids.
http://actionlyme.org/THE_REAL_DON_DICKSON.htm

Kids who I clearly attempted to keep safe from this maniac.

DCF knows this. They gave my kids to that maniac on purpose.

Kathleen


kathleen wrote:
Can anyone join this discussion?

We were brutalized as kids. My parents were among
the most violent people in the neighborhood. Physical
discipline took place on a daily basis.

But they were *usually* light-weight assaults. A cat of nine tails.
Plenty of pain. No broken bones.

You could call this "the fine art of child abuse."

They were also Church people. Few people knew about
it. I felt vindicated when the gym teacher asked my brother
(in the 1960s) if he wanted to press charges when he
saw the welts.

Jim knew such an action would bring even more welts.

And the violence wasn't just about the violence, you know?


The other family in our neighborhood who was high-ranking
for violence used a baseball bat.


I think it is regrettable that people think child abuse is
helpful.

I don't know how they think this is a good thing.

I truly believe it is ignorance, lack of self-control,
and in especially our case, I can tell you no one was ever
"bad" enough to deserve a beating. I think there was a lot
of transferred hatred going on there. Anger towards the
spouse, running both ways, was taken out on the kids.

For example, my sister was LOUD a lot. This was a
definitely a crime in that house.

I had the good fortune of being naturally quiet.

In modern times being banished to the bedroom, or some
assignment of toil, with exclusion of some desirable activity
seems so much more logical.


Nobody, none of my siblings, ever got over this abuse.

And when my brother was killed when he 18, my father deeply
regretted his tactics. Then *he* never got over it. I never
saw the man cry before in my life or since. And the extreme
abuse towards this boy was what the tears were about.

Now he knows he, alone, should not have felt so guilty.

'Because of the beatings that when on when Dad wasn't
there. That's when the assaults were no longer what you
could call "light-weight."


These are church people. 'Wouldn't think of missing a
Holy Day of Obligation. Small time hypocrites, I imagine
you could call them.

Look at what Bush has done.


There are a lot of variables to this equation, obviously, and your
kid is your kid, but anyone who says violence is a good way
to raise kids is very, very ignorant- I would declare that ignorance is
primary.

But it's when ignorance and pure hatred combine, in my opinion,
that you can't expect a good outcome. It's hard to *find* or see
this hatred, because usually the abusers do a better job of explaining
why the kid deserved it, than the kid explaining why he didn't.

And Mom and Dad pay the Psychiatrist's bills. If the Psychiatrist
says "STOP ABUSING THE KID," the parents will simply take
the child to someone else who agrees to see the kid as the
problem.


Once in a while the kid *is* the problem 1% of the time in females
and 6% of the time in males. Therefore it's a better bet that
the parents are not telling the whole story.


It seems that only the people who did not survive a violent
childhood think physical discipline is a good idea. Maybe it's
a function of orders of magnitude.

The current social era suffers an undeniable dearth of love
and an undeniable excessive degree of violence in the media.

We are a violent nation, no doubt about it.

Note also that there isn't an entry in the DSM for "SURVIVED
INSANELY VIOLENT PARENTS." The victim gets the assignment
of the "mental illness" diagnosis. So we can thank the APA
for serving their own ends and their clear lack of success in helping
people, across the board.

Remember Freud started out with the premise that his "hysterical"
patients were victims of childhood sexual abuse. Later this became
the notion that these women were "sexually repressed," because the
fathers of these abused women were not fond of the notion of
being discovered to be the cause of the "hysteria."

Freud even performed nasal surgery on a woman because somehow
he thought the nose was connected to the... libido? I kid you not.


Anyway, "blame the victim," seems to be the perceptual framework
of psychiatry and that is probably why we are still having this
discussion today. It's the lack of love, and things don't appear
to be taking a course for a correction.

"BRING EM ON!!!"

That's our fearless leader- George W. AWOL during the Swift
Boat Years Bush.



Anyone who thinks violent discipline of children is a good idea
should experience it themselves. Tie the person down. Face
down. Get a cat of nine tails... Then throw them in a cage for
a while until the evidence of the welts is gone.

Then, when the person complains, everyone together say the
abusee is lying.

Repeat...

Kathleen

wrote:
Opinions wrote:
Deep inside, older no-spanks are usually very wrath-filled people.

What an odd speculation.

Often they were mistreated as children and never got over it.

I venture that no one every really get's over it.

Anytime

Absolutes...hmmm...what could that mean, I wonder?

they are confronted with a parent who does not agree with their
extremist point of view,

It's extremist to not want children hit? What would non-extremist be?
To want them hit?

painful memories emerge from their childhood.

Pure, refined, Maple Projection. No Additives or Extenders.

The angry child within lashes out at the new proxy parent in their
life.

Funny, you and monkeyboy seem to be the best examples here. Yet we have
no desire to be your parent, proxy or otherwise. And you've misused the
term "proxy,' in this context.

Much like antisocial children, no-spanks take great delight in
antagonizing parents who do not cater to their whim.

I'm sure it's just horrible for you to have your assualtive behaviors
pointed out to you. I'll try to be more gentle next time. Really, I
will. Really.

Whether in person
or in a newsgroup, trying to communicate to a no-spank is much like
trying to talk to a grizzly that feels cornered.

Hmmm....feeling that threatened are you? Now what would that indicate?

Oh, I know.

That you have good reason to feel that way. You and those like you
will, in the not too distant future (and already if they are teachers
in some states), face fines, and possible imprisonment for assualting
children. The rubric of "spanking" is not going to continue fooling
anyone, and even your delusional denying selves will have to face it
when look up at the judge on the bench. Spanking will be seen as what
it is not...that you claim it is, "discipline."

The word has been a place to hide. But no longer. The act you now know
as "spanking" will receive it's proper name: "ASSAULT."

Or you can quit spanking now.

Watching you in your despiration reminds us this isn't an easy task,
and that we need to keep pressing forward.

There are no state laws against spanking, although 27 states have
policies against the practice and this year Pennsylvania has become the
28th. These apply to schools.

One state already has a statute that is more on the side of the child
being protected than the parent's "right" to hit them.

I wonder what would happen to an American parent that was traveling in
one of the countries that ban spanking as criminal and were caught by
authorities spanking their child?

To a child, a parent that hits, is simply a big terrorist.

Eventually they'll get you back, just like YOU are using US as your
surrogate parent.

Poor boy. You go ahead and pour your heart out. We understand.

0:-




Jeremy James wrote:
Fellow parents:

What has happenned to this newsgroup? It used to consist primarily of
parenets like myself, parents that know that when spanking is used as a
loving discliplinary tool, it is very effective. Parents that wanted to be
able to discuss this with other parents that felt the same way. Recently
however it seems to consist more of people that simply want to argue with
each other. I.E. people like Kane and LaVonne. These two people have
somehow managed to convince themselves that they are enlightened in some
way, or that they are intellectually superior to the other members here, or
some other thing. They are neither of course. When I first joined this
group I tried to debate with them, however they do not debate, they dictate.
Debating means that you are willing to listen to ther other person's
opinion, however they are totally obtuse. They are so convinced that their
own opinion is right that your opinion must be wrong. If you disagree with
them you must be a horrible person and you are abusive toward your children.
When they run out of logical arguments, they resort to insults. In their
world if you spank your children it means that you are an ingorant redneck,
and probably a pedophile with latent homesexual tendencies as well. Kane
has even implied that I spank my children because I get sexually aroused
when I do so. I have an 8year old and a 5 year old daughter and a 2 year
old son. I use spanking for all three of them because it works. And this
drives them crazy because I refuse to convert over to their narrow point of
view. From their viewpoint, if I am spanking my children I must have some
alterior motive, they cannot accept the fact that there are times when
spanking is the best way to handle the situation. And that I spank my
children because I love them and because IT WORKS!

I have stopped reading anything by either of them and I refuse to reply to
anything they say. I am sure they will have something to say about this
post but I will not read or respond to it. Not because I am admitting that
they must be right or because I can't think of anything to say, I simply
refuse to discuss anything with either of them because they refuse to
listen. I encourage others to follow suit.

Jeremy J

This is actually a rather good analogy.

SRplus wrote:

....fighting for no-spanking is like F!@%^#&^ for abstinence.

There has been an attempt to improve the world by eliminating anything
that might cause or be used for violent purposes. In large measure, it
is very much like the time when the Catholic Church tried to come up
with an appropriate response for every situation encounter by mankind.
It is a task that rivals emptying the ocean with a teacup.

One of the more curious attacks on spanking has been to link it to
Christianity. Some no-spank strategists have used this link to justify
attacks of the religion. Others have thought hijacking the religion a
more appropriate response. Neither will probably solve the problem
since, as various posters on the web have pointed out, spanking is
probably older than the religion.

Another oddity is that even no-spanks often voluntarily concede that
aversive stimuli are effective in deterring unwanted behavior. Links
have been made between grounding and prison. It is also interesting
that, often when no-spanks don't get their way, they become threatening
in their tone. Obviously, they know what bring about results; just
can't bring themselves to admit it.

Ron wrote:
Historically, corporal punishment has been a staple of child rearing.
20,000 years or more of parents correcting inappropriate behaviors by
using natures own behavior modification system. And it has worked. We
are where we are as a species because we use those methods that prove
reliable, and those things that are a natural part of being human. Pain
is the best behavior modifier ever known. It is built into the human
body and we depend on it every minute of every day to tell us when we
are doing something that we should not be doing. It works, period.
Always has, always will. 20,000 years of testing, and while its not
quite perfect, as nothing is, it is effective.

Spanking is one of the tools available to parents. One, of many. As
with anyone who is shaping something, one must use the correct tool at
the proper time to achieve the result wanted. Remove the tool from the
tool box and you either dont get a finnished product or not the one you
intended to make when you started. And not every tool is necessary for
every child. Some tools you may never use, some you may use once, and
some may be required on an ongoing basis.

But, as with anything, corporal punishment has its place and time.
There are times when it is effective, and times when it is
counterproductive. A good parent learns to distinguish between the two,
and apply the best correction technique for the situation. Some people
never learn this subtle lesson, hence we get child abuse or out of
control children. Neither of those is good, for either the child or for
society. No matter one's resons for having children, our society
demands that we do our best to raise them to be responsible members.
When we fail to do so then the child pay's the bulk of the price for
our failure, not us.

As for your having fostered children, well so have I. More than 200 of
them over the last 15 years, well Corporal Punishment is
counterproductive in most cases when dealing with children in the
system. Most of them have already been abused in one way or another,
and could view corporal punishment as an extension of that abuse. The
objective of foster care is to prevent that type of thing, and
therefore corporal punishment is not an option, nor should it be.

I have seen Kane and others here quote studies that say that the vast
number of individuals in our nations prisons come from spanking
households. OK, this may be true, but to pin that group of individuals
criminal behaviors and background on whether their parents spanked them
or not as a child is like saying that someone is a carpenter rather
than a banker because they got toys rather than money for Christmas as
a kid. Both are nonsensical analogies

We can debate the pro's and cons of spanking all we like here. We all
have our opinions one way or the other (and some of us even admit it),
but to state absolutes such as "spanking is violence", or "spanking is
hitting" shows that the individual making that statement does not have
a very good grasp of the concepts or realities of the discussion.

Ron

Opinions wrote:
This is actually a rather good analogy.

SRplus wrote:

...fighting for no-spanking is like F!@%^#&^ for abstinence.

RRR, no dimwits.

If you are to be consistent in analogy, it would have to be "hitting
for nonspanking."

Or, "NOT-F!@%^#&^ for abstinence."

You don't really think that nonspankers are spanking for nonspanking,
do you?

This is the level of intelligence and reason we've come to expect
though.

You got hit too many times to high up your butt there lil 'o'

Kane

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.

The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".

Doan

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:38:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.

The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".

And how do you spank without hitting the child, Doan?
You can't. Now, you can pat lightly (though it is very doubtful
if spankers would consider that a spanking), but you can't
spank without hitting. You can hit without spanking since
spanking is a rather specific kind of hitting, but you guys
are ridiculous in claiming that spanking is not hitting.

Doan


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:38:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.

The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".

And how do you spank without hitting the child, Doan?
You can't. Now, you can pat lightly (though it is very doubtful
if spankers would consider that a spanking), but you can't
spank without hitting. You can hit without spanking since
spanking is a rather specific kind of hitting, but you guys
are ridiculous in claiming that spanking is not hitting.

And where did I claim that spanking is not hitting? How do
pat someone without "hitting" him/her, Dorothy?

Doan

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:52:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:38:14 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, toto wrote:

On 8 Jan 2006 08:18:42 -0800, "Ron"
wrote:

"spanking is hitting" shows that the individual making that
statement does not have a very good grasp of the concepts
or realities of the discussion.

It seems that you are the one who doesn't have a grasp of
reality.

I wish someone would show us how you can spank without
hitting the child.

hitting - the act of contacting one thing with another
in the case of spanking, you are hitting the child with
your hand (or an implement depending on how you
spank). You simply cannot spank without contact. That's
a contradiction in terms.

The problem with that is using a general term, "hitting" for
a specific term, "spanking" leads to obfuscation; even a
pat on the back would fit your definition of "hitting".

And how do you spank without hitting the child, Doan?
You can't. Now, you can pat lightly (though it is very doubtful
if spankers would consider that a spanking), but you can't
spank without hitting. You can hit without spanking since
spanking is a rather specific kind of hitting, but you guys
are ridiculous in claiming that spanking is not hitting.

And where did I claim that spanking is not hitting? How do
pat someone without "hitting" him/her, Dorothy?

See above. The person you said *well stated* for claimed it.

Doan



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits