How to spot an idiot

Find some environment where a parent can *legally* spank an 11-year-old
for misbehaving.

Next, find a parent within the above environment who can legally spank
can *legally* spank an 11-year-old but, instead, chooses some
alternative. That's a no-spank parent.

Then, wait for a second no-spank to coming running to the defense of
the first no-spank after the first no-spank chooses to zap the kid with
50,000 volts of potentially lethal electricity instead of smacking her
bottom. That's the idiot.

The more educated the first and second no-spanks are, the more likely
both are educated beyond their intelligence.

Opinions wrote:
Find some environment where a parent can *legally* spank an 11-year-old
for misbehaving.

That would be every state but possibly Michigan, and likely they could
there too the way the law reads, and anywhere they wish...anywhere.
Public or private.

Next, find a parent within the above environment who can legally spank
can *legally* spank an 11-year-old but, instead, chooses some
alternative. That's a no-spank parent.

Yep. But you miss the point. They would have to consistently NOT spank
and do something else instead to truly be a "no-spank parent." It's not
a sometime thing.

And they would not qualify if they use other physically painful methods
on the child.

Then, wait for a second no-spank to coming running to the defense of
the first no-spank after the first no-spank chooses to zap the kid with
50,000 volts of potentially lethal electricity instead of smacking her
bottom. That's the idiot.

Have you seen, so far, any person you identify as a no-spank advocate
come to the defense of the person that used the taser? And you would be
hard pressed to prove that such a device is as lethal as other things
parents have done to children. Children have died from discipline by
"spanking," as well as being hot-sauced, scalded, shaken, thrown, and
every one of these were defended, at one time or another, by the parent
as "discipline."

The more educated the first and second no-spanks are, the more likely
both are educated beyond their intelligence.

I can understand why you in particular have a problem with education,
but not being one how are you to judge if it's beyond their
intelligence or not?

Have you any research, or even an interview based collection of
anecdotes that would support the contention that higher intelligence
equates with a propensity to be a no spanker who instead uses other
forms of pain, such as tasers?

Of course I'd be curious to see that, since my experience, and my own
research, indicates something quite different.

We'll wait as you dance about.

Got that properly linked citation to this story yet that I asked you
for politely?

No?

We'll wait for that too.

Gee, I hope you aren't lying about this lady, and she doesn't ask me
for your identification Observer. I've e-mailed her at NCU and await
her response. It's too late at night there now.

Ring up your monkeyboydancer. He needs more to lie about. This should
work for him for a couple of posts at least. Poor spanked things. He's
stuck at 5, and you at about 8. How badly did they hit you?

0:-

Opinions wrote:
Find some environment where a parent can *legally* spank an 11-year-old
for misbehaving.

So far, that would be every state in the US.

Next, find a parent within the above environment who can legally spank
can *legally* spank an 11-year-old but, instead, chooses some
alternative. That's a no-spank parent.

That's like saying find an environment where slavery is legal, and find
individuals who choose not to own slaves. These are true non slavery
owners.

Come on, opinions, even you can do better than this.

No spank parents are parents who do not spank. Non slave owners are
individuals who do not own slaves. One is still legal, the other isn't.

A parent who doesn't spank is a parent who doesn't spank, for whatever
reason.

A person who doesn't own slaves is a person who doesn't own slaves, for
whatever reason.

Of course, we know that many non slave owners were not non slave owners
by choice. Laws changed. Enough said.

LaVonne

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

Of course, we know that many non slave owners were not non slave owners
by choice. Laws changed. Enough said.

LaVonne

But a liar is always a liar by choice! Where are those studies again? ;-)

Doan

Carlson LaVonne wrote:
Opinions wrote:
Find some environment where a parent can *legally* spank an 11-year-old
for misbehaving.

So far, that would be every state in the US.

Next, find a parent within the above environment who can legally spank
can *legally* spank an 11-year-old but, instead, chooses some
alternative. That's a no-spank parent.

That's like saying find an environment where slavery is legal, and find
individuals who choose not to own slaves. These are true non slavery
owners.

Come on, opinions, even you can do better than this.

No spank parents are parents who do not spank. Non slave owners are
individuals who do not own slaves. One is still legal, the other isn't.

A parent who doesn't spank is a parent who doesn't spank, for whatever
reason.

A person who doesn't own slaves is a person who doesn't own slaves, for
whatever reason.

Of course, we know that many non slave owners were not non slave owners
by choice. Laws changed. Enough said.

LaVonne

Where you aware that women were routinely barred from private colleges,
like Princeton, until the Nixon administration?

It could be still an all male bastion. But......

..... law is what changed that. Now the president of Princeton is a
woman.

Do you suppose Ostrich would prefer it remain an all male school?

0:-)

There is a correct way to spank a 11yr old girl, and an in-correct way.
No one has to beat a child, just redden the butt to get the point across
and use
the corner standing to futher the point.

Sometimes taking the gameboy away
just isn't enough, or taking away the phone.


spanking mother

wrote:
There is a correct way to spank a 11yr old girl,

No there isn't. But there is a correct way not to spank.

and an in-correct way.

No there isn't. But there is a correct way not to spank.

No one has to beat a child, just redden the butt to get the point across
and use
the corner standing to futher the point.

No one can say with provable certainty of even a low order that they
will not injure the child physically or psychologically. Adult sexual
dysfunctions of various kinds can and do arise from even single
childhood events that are intense enough to cause a strong reaction.

The butt is neurologically connected to the genitals. Need I say more?

Do you know precisely or even roughly for the purposes of restraint or
escalation, just what circumstances, both of the spanking itself, and
the high number of variable conditions of the child what would be
effective teaching, and what would amount to abuse? Not the obvious
marks of injury or the sound of bones breaking but the more subtle and
internal injuries that might, could, and do happen to children?


Sometimes taking the gameboy away
just isn't enough,

Enough for what? Compliance? Shouldn't be a clue that punishment might
not even be the best path to follow?

or taking away the phone.

Why punish at all, if you don't have to? And do you really have to?

People love to claim, "but I've tried everything and nothing works."

On closer though even casual examination it turns out to not be true.
"Everything" hasn't been tried. Often something not tried is simple
effective and has no unwanted side effects, and is even faster and
easier than spanking. OR gameboy grabbing.

spanking mother

In the majority of cases parents that have to punish simply haven't
enough information to choose other ways of responding.

Children are pretty much a bundle of compulsions that are driven by
nature toward end goals of development.

They are, even when we think we see foolishness and defiance, trying to
learn things nature says they must.

Putting on that mindset can save mountains of grief and produce a
superior adult citizen, given time.

Problem is it's very hard to believe my claim without certain knowledge
that I pointed out in my opening sentence.

What precisely is this mysterious knowledge? Knowledge that we can
replace the erroneous we usually have inherited, and fill up the empty
places where we are ignorant?

Nothing mysterious at all. Child development stages and normal behaviors
are well documented

Any good book on the subject has the info.

Early Childhood Development would be the key words to search for.

It's amazing to see the things kids do in this different light...with
different eyes so to speak.

I was lucky. I had an early childhood development specialist for a
school district move in next door when my kids were young. They owe him
a lot. 0:-)

I sure wore a path to his door. He liked pineapple upside down cake and
it was the only thing I knew how to bake. I got very good at it.

I learned to, and tough for a old school male, go TO my child when she
did something "wrong," no matter how much I imagined it to be defiant or
otherwise deliberate. I learned that in fact, in trying to learn, she
was simply 'in trouble,' and my job was to help, not hinder.

I would hug her. I would ask her if she knew what she wanted to do. Then
according to her age at the time, what she could do that would not break
her little brothers head, to do what her goal was.

In creating an atmosphere of trust, it was also one of great
vulnerability for HER. The very thing that makes relationships work.

Mutual trust. In very short order indeed, when she was doing 'wrong'
rather than persist, she would come to me for help.

That became a pattern so healthy and so rewarding and so ingrained that
at 44 she still will seek my counsel on issues of right and wrong.
Though she certainly developed a sound moral base of her own.

It's just that for decision making she knows it's health not to just do
it, but to seek more information. Apparently she still trusts me. That,
in some ways, is even more important than her love for me. But I
wouldn't take either for the other.

Her brother is the same way. Good citizens. Moral. Problem solvers. Life
long learners. Self governing. Self motivating. We need more of those.

Kane