Gag

http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

What religion were your four parents, Kane?

What made you decide to be an Atheist?

0:- wrote:
http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

Greegor wrote:
What religion were your four parents, Kane?

Undifferentiated. And I only had two.


What made you decide to be an Atheist?


Knowledge.

What relevance is there to your questions?

In other words, do you have a point other than wanting to appear more
intelligent than you are?

What religion were yours and why did you decide to become an idiot?

I see you didn't want to get into the religous justification for
beating children.

It's there if you can read.

0:-]


0:- wrote:
http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

Don't you think your parents religion had something to do with your
atheism?

Greegor wrote:
What religion were your four parents, Kane?

Kane wrote
Undifferentiated. And I only had two.

But you also lost two, you said. Was it a moral or ethical lie?

Greg wrote What made you decide to be an Atheist?

Kane wrote Knowledge.

College days? Don't you look back at your youthful zeal
and realize what a rediculous idealist you were?

What relevance is there to your questions?

Directly relates to your reaction to the link you posted.

In other words, do you have a point other than wanting to appear more
intelligent than you are?

According to you, I need more of that!

What religion were yours and why did you decide to become an idiot?

I see you didn't want to get into the religous justification for
beating children.

It's there if you can read.

http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

Greegor wrote:
Don't you think your parents religion had something to do with your
atheism?

Nope. During WWII the folks that babysat me for my shipyard welder mom
were Catholic. They took over the job of making a "Christian" out of
me.

Greegor wrote:
What religion were your four parents, Kane?

Kane wrote
Undifferentiated. And I only had two.

But you also lost two, you said. Was it a moral or ethical lie?

I only had two bios.

How many did you have?

Did you know that bitches can be impregnated by more than one dog?


Greg wrote What made you decide to be an Atheist?

Kane wrote Knowledge.

College days?

If I relied only on college for my knowledge, Gagg, I'd be a delusional
babbler like you.

Don't you look back at your youthful zeal
and realize what a rediculous idealist you were?

Don't we all though. sigh

What relevance is there to your questions?

Directly relates to your reaction to the link you posted.

While of course avoiding any discussion of what was at that link,
right?

In other words, do you have a point other than wanting to appear more
intelligent than you are?

According to you, I need more of that!

You were bound to get one right.

What religion were yours and why did you decide to become an idiot?

What religion were yours and why did you decide to become an idiot?

I see you didn't want to get into the religous justification for
beating children.

It's there if you can read.

I see you didn't want to get into the religous justification for
beating children, still.

http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

Please comment on the article. We can save the personal attacks for any
old time.

Does this blog author not defend the beating of children by use of the
Bible?

Yes, or no?

And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?

0:-

Greegor wrote:

What religion were your four parents, Kane?

And here I thought Don crawled out from under a rock.


What made you decide to be an Atheist?

0:- wrote:
http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

Michael wrote:
0:- wrote:

Michael wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

0:- wrote:

Michael wrote:
Greegor wrote:

What religion were your four parents, Kane?
And here I thought Don crawled out from under a rock.

What made you decide to be an Atheist?

0:- wrote:
http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html
Not interested in the actual topic of the thread, Michael, but felt the
need to contribute?

I do get the urge occasionally.

Let's try again, and see if you have any thoughts on the point I made
about this website, shall we?

http://cathys-miracle-place.blogspot...iscipline.html

"
Please comment on the article. We can save the personal attacks for any
old time.

Does this blog author not defend the beating of children by use of the
Bible?

She appears to defend the use of discipline.

If you agree that 'discipline' must include hitting.


Yes, or no?

And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?

I agree that children need discipline, up to and including spankings. Not
beatings.

Which of her statements and quotes must be ignored to agree with her then?

Proverbs 23:13-14: "Withold not discipline from the child, for if you
strike and punish him with the (reed-like) rod, he will not die. Thou
shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

That one? Notice she had to insert "(reed-like)" when in fact no where
in the bible or any translated material from Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic
has limited the "rod" to be a light reed. In fact, if she knew what a
reed actually is she'd know that it can be very painful indeed.

So she made that up.

She carefully attempts to limit the object and refers to not "beating,"
and not leaving lasting damage.

Two questions come to mind. One is that there is no line to be crossed.
You don't know it's there until after you've crossed it.

And that would be for both physical and mental injury.

The second one is this: how many cases of physical abuse that come to
the attention of CPS do not include an excuse by the parent they were
just disciplining?

I took special notice of this presumption by the author:

...Godly discipline will keep children from being dysfunctional later in
life. We are told as Christian parents to train our children in the ways
of the Lord and when they grow up, they will not depart from that
training. Notice it says "train," not "teach." Many parents teach their
children right from wrong, but have failed to "train" them to obey.
Spanking is part of the training. Many parents yell and threaten their
children, but never follow through with the proper punishment, and
therefore, their children get their own way. A disciplined child will
bring great delight to parents, while the child left alone will bring
shame to the home. Many a mother has wept when her children became
wicked and thus shamed her. The Bible way to prevent this is by
disciplining a child while he is young by spanking him. The Bible does
not say to "reason" with a child. When a child is older, you can
certainly add reasoning with the spanking. However, the most convincing
thing we can do is to spank them. We have heard the expression, "the way
to reason with them is through their bottoms."...

Between the two children I raised without CP and the two my wife raised
without CP, one is about to become a CPA, another has worked for the
same company in heavy industry for 21 years, one is a management level
employee of one of the Fortune 500 companies, and one is fully employed
in the leasing industry and has been since reaching adulthood.

No one has been in jail. No one is violent.

This is not a coincidence. I know hundreds of families just like ours in
this matter of CP.
Hundreds of families that included spanking have the same successes as you
claim to have had. That is not a coincidence either.

They routinely report a preponderance of the same outcomes as we have had.

It's rare to find anyone among them that has had any trouble with the
law, or drugs.

Interestingly, those people that report having been "spanked" as
children have a much higher incidence, as adults, of crime, depression,
drug use, and suicide.
Would you share a source that has studied this?

Sure.


Thanks.

You are welcome.

Generally first, then specifically with my comments.

A search turns up about 37,000 for spanking anxiety aggression 2005.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
http://tinyurl.com/ym2cvk

Among these is the most recent and largest study ever done...and
international study we've tried to engage spanking advocates on without
success. They seem to be in denial. With your indulgence I'll cross
post to alt.parenting.spanking, which is more On Topic than our posting
site at the moment.

I posted the following in April of this year.


From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Sun, Apr 16 2006 10:44 am
Email: "0:-"
Groups: alt.parenting.spanking
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

" ... The researchers found differences in how often mothers used
physical discipline and the mothers' perceptions of how often other
parents used physical discipline. Specifically:

* Mothers in Thailand were least likely to physically discipline
their children, followed by mothers in China, the Philippines, Italy,
India, and Kenya, with mothers in Kenya most likely to physically
discipline their children.
* More frequent use of physical discipline was less strongly
associated with child aggression and anxiety when it was perceived as
being more culturally accepted, but physical discipline was also
associated with more aggression and anxiety regardless of the
perception
of cultural acceptance.
* In countries in which physical discipline was more common and
culturally accepted, children who were physically disciplined were less
aggressive and less anxious than children who were physically
disciplined in countries where physical discipline was rarely used.
* In all countries, however, higher use of physical discipline was
associated with more child aggression and anxiety. ... "

Those last sentences pretty much says it all for the argument that
where cultures accept more CP it doesn't result in aberrent reactions
in children.

The next is a smaller study on the use of aggressively harsh CP to
preschool aged children.

I've seen posters defend the use of such methods as being "up to the
parent to decide."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202073032.htm

.... In their article, Roy C. Herrenkohl, distinguished university
service professor at Lehigh, and M. Jean Russo, a Lehigh research
scientist, say evidence points to a strong link between child rearing
and early childhood aggression.

"Infants and preschoolers whose early socioemotional needs are not
appropriately met develop expectations that care is not available and
that others cannot be trusted or caring," the researchers say.
"Consequently, these children may view themselves as unworthy of such
care and become angry in the expectation that their needs will not be
met. This sense of deprivation gives rise to frustration and anger.

"Overly severe physical discipline in early childhood is one type of
violent behavior experienced at a time when the child is learning to
interact with the world. The experience of harsh, physical discipline
both terrorizes and humiliates the child, adding to the sense of
worthlessness and providing a model for coping in social interactions.
....

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/423496
.... Corporal punishment is associated with an increased risk of later
violence: peer violence, domestic violence, and suicide are all
correlated with parental reliance on corporal punishment. Nevertheless,
most American parents spank their children. According to Dr. Howard,
25% of children younger than 6 months old have been spanked, as have
40% of children 6-12 months old. Infants cannot understand the reason
that they are being spanked, and spanking interferes with attachment.

In contrast, parents who learn how to set firm limits without resorting
to violence teach their children a valuable lesson. Parents, in fact,
play enormously important roles in modeling how to deal with conflict
and frustration. There are a number of nonviolent negative
reinforcement techniques, ranging from the "hairy eyeball" to "time
out" models, Dr. Howard noted. ...

While CP is not the only factor in children who grow up with problems
with anxiety, depression, criminal behavior, it appears to be a
significant factor.

What's my personal take?

Well, for many years in my youth I observed, deliberately, people
around me that were successful according to my personal values.

Satisfaction with their life. Modest to wealthy earning power. Free of
crime, substance abuse, and mental illness.

The common denominator? Little or no CP. I personally, candidly, and
informally questioned such folks about their childhood.

Later as I returned to school for higher education I found more
sources, such as I've listed above, that agreed with my empirical
results based solely on my desire to understand why some people are
successful in life, and others are not.

I could see plenty of both around me. And I found exceptions as well.
That appeared to prove the concept that the less CP the more success as
an adult.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CP67%2...0Spanked.pd f
http://tinyurl.com/y7nn6s

At the link above you'll find a Strauss report on the CP issue.

He is still an active researcher so if you are interested you may wish
to look at other of his works.

In other words, there is a preponderance of evidence that spanking
hurts, in more ways than intended.

There is no evidence that spanking works without risk. Or even that it
teaches the desired lesson in the long term.

Working with adolescents in a treatment setting made even more clear to
me the issues around CP. The only child ever worked with that
confounded the model...that is he had not been subjected to CP as a
small child but had horrendous life problems, including violence,
turned out to have brain damage that went undetected until I convinced
a psychiatrist to send him for a neurological workup and a scan showed
the anomaly.

Every single adolescent child I ever worked with, hundreds, had one or
more of the issues of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and violent
sometimes criminal behavior.

Every one also shared having had early CP, from mild to harsh...and
oddly it did not matter as to outcomes, all that much, which had
happened to the child. All shared similar problems.

Kane


Kane



0:- "

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdNqK9BRaXcRKuK0RAvytAJ4qetT7zsUl8oYkgqwosF i50y4p4wCeIz3E
Tesf8lTkQsmxrBHoHckAcPI=
=059F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Michael

Dan Sullivan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
Among people who do not believe in spanking (nonspankers)
Kane represents the most extreme (anti-spanking)
and the intent to IMPOSE this agenda through laws
even offends many nonspankers.

Whose laws?

Kane is writing laws now?

Kane tends not to use any even-handed (pun) research.

Check out alt.parenting.spanking

Check out http://tinyurl.com/yxodvb

It's HILARIOUS!!!!

Greg offers to teach a spanking course...

Greg's buddy, Dennis, was careful to remove the alt.parenting.spanking
group address from the list. I wonder why?

Didn't want anyone that knows better to see his lying post?

0:-]

G Don't you think your parents religion had
G something to do with your atheism?

Kane wrote
Nope. During WWII the folks that babysat me for my
shipyard welder mom were Catholic. They took over
the job of making a "Christian" out of me.

G Why do you think that was not part of your
G decision to be come an atheist?

Kane wrote I didn't say it wasn't.

Greg wrote
My impression is that a disproportionate number of
atheists were once Catholics. Isn't it one of the more
dogmatic of the Christian denominations?

K Your impressions are not the gold
K standard, Greg. Or haven't you noticed yet?

chuckle

G Did you parents approve of this religious indoctrination?
K I don't recall. One is very young when they take First Communion.

This question was about YOUR indoctrination.
Did your bio parents approve of this indoctrination?

How many YEARS were you with the foster parents
that they could fully indoctrinate you with Catholicism?

If not, that certainly could have contributed to some resentments!
Come to think of it though, even if they DID, it sure could have.

Are you suggesting I have [resentments] toward Christians, in general?

Maybe later, but for now I was after information about
the "sling shot effect" as I see it.

Just before I openned you post to read it I was looking for the
Lawerence website to add to the thread after my reply to Michael

The issue isn't religion, Greg, it's what I consider
to be a misuse of it.

An atheist is NOT an appropriate judge of this, period.

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
This is another Christian perspective on CP, Greg.

You go from one fruit cake extreme to the other.

Gosh, you'd think there was NO in-between!

I'd hardly be resentful of Christians and post in support of my
arguments from their source, now would I?

Sure you would!
Anything that serves your personal CRUSADE!

Kane wrote of his bio parents
Undifferentiated.

Greg wrote
Please explain "undifferentiated" in your context.

Kane wrote
Please explain why you wish to know.

Already explained.

Understanding the background of your personal atheism
tempers any discussion where your anti-religious zeal arises.

Greg wrote What made you decide to be an Atheist?
Kane wrote Knowledge.

Greg
Was there an event or indoctrination
that lead to your "epiphany"?

Kane wrote LIfe.

That's not generally how such epiphanies come about.
Could you please be more honest about this?



K What relevance is there to your questions?
G Directly relates to your reaction to the link you posted.

K While of course avoiding any discussion
K of what was at that link, right?

K I see you didn't want to get into the religous
K justification for beating children.

Sure, but understanding an atheists motivation
for attacking religion

Obviously you don't need to understand, Greg, as
you made up your mind I was attacking religion.

Did you think you were the first atheist to do so?

Or are you so deep into your atheism you don't even see it?

When you fact it was beating USING religion as an excuse.

It was?

would be as important as
understanding a fanatically religious participant
defending dogma would be.

No, I don't need to know his history to argue.
Why would you need to know mine?

Actually, dogmatists are fairly ...dogmatic
atheists are less so.

Now would you care to argue the actual issue,
or do you think you are
smart with your all to obvious dodges?


No, she departs, on the issue CP, somewhat from what others say.

Golly I had NO IDEA you were pointing out a fruit cake!! (giggle)

And not all Christians agree on the use of CP for discipline.

Like you thought they would?

I see you didn't want to get into the religous
justification for beating children, still.

Please comment on the article. We can save
the personal attacks for any old time.

Your entire motivation is an atheist version of jihadh or crusade.

Really? You know that I've posted this website link many times here,
Greg.

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

What would have been "an atheist version of jihadh or crusade" about my
doing so?

How does this change your personal crusade?

Does this blog author not defend the
beating of children by use of the Bible?
Yes, or no?
And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?

Greg wrote
You want to put them on trial vicariously through me?
Mental case!

Kane wrote
Hyperbole. You constantly attempt to use others
to put someone on trail, Greg.
And I asked your opinion, not for a trial.

In other words you cannot carry forword your argument. I see.

MY argument? Mental case!

As I said, when you get over your cowardice, "Does this blog author not
defend the beating of children by use of the Bible? Yes, or no?
And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?"

Why in hell would I do any of what you say? Jackass!

I'll presume you are unable to defend your own position on the use of
CP unless you can cogently argue using this source I pointed out.

Why the heck would I use the source you pointed out?
Or defend what against what??

You may now add also, Sue Lawrences website, a Christian one that does
not agree with using pain to "train" children
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

Have you ever actually had success with scamming
people into arguing with you on YOUR TERMS?

Greegor wrote:

....a lot of dodging of the issue, and refusal to accept that I was not
criticizing "religion" but the use of religion to support beating
children.

G Don't you think your parents religion had
G something to do with your atheism?

Kane wrote
Nope. During WWII the folks that babysat me for my
shipyard welder mom were Catholic. They took over
the job of making a "Christian" out of me.

G Why do you think that was not part of your
G decision to be come an atheist?

Kane wrote I didn't say it wasn't.

Greg wrote
My impression is that a disproportionate number of
atheists were once Catholics. Isn't it one of the more
dogmatic of the Christian denominations?

K Your impressions are not the gold
K standard, Greg. Or haven't you noticed yet?

chuckle

Ah, then you did notice.


G Did you parents approve of this religious indoctrination?
K I don't recall. One is very young when they take First Communion.

This question was about YOUR indoctrination.

Yes?

Did your bio parents approve of this indoctrination?

I don't recall. One is very young when they take First Communion.

What makes you think my answer is not directly to your question?

I certainly wasn't making a claim for someone else, and certainly
people have limited recall of their childhood.

How many YEARS were you with the foster parents
that they could fully indoctrinate you with Catholicism?

I wasn't. And obviously they didn't.

If not, that certainly could have contributed to some resentments!
Come to think of it though, even if they DID, it sure could have.

Are you suggesting I have [resentments] toward Christians, in general?

Maybe later, but for now I was after information about
the "sling shot effect" as I see it.

And what do you mean by "'sling shot effect'?"

Just before I openned you post to read it I was looking for the
Lawerence website to add to the thread after my reply to Michael

The issue isn't religion, Greg, it's what I consider
to be a misuse of it.

An atheist is NOT an appropriate judge of this, period.

Then only religious people are appropriate to comment on religion?

Interesting view of the world you have, Greg.

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
This is another Christian perspective on CP, Greg.

You go from one fruit cake extreme to the other.

Ah, then you admit the first one was less than rational. My very
argument.

Now could you explain why you think the Lawarence's website and their
views are "fruit cake?"

Gosh, you'd think there was NO in-between!

If course there is an in-between, but that creates the question
again...you know the one. Where is The Line between Safe Spanking, and
injurious beating?

I'd hardly be resentful of Christians and post in support of my
arguments from their source, now would I?

Sure you would!

No I wouldn't. I'm not Greg.

Anything that serves your personal CRUSADE!

Oh, you mean I support my claims. Yes, you are right.

It's hardly a "crusade" to advocate for a social consciousness and
service provision law that has no penalties attached to violations of
it, Greg.

You have lied about me and my being an anti spanking "extremist."

Kane wrote of his bio parents
Undifferentiated.

Greg wrote
Please explain "undifferentiated" in your context.

Kane wrote
Please explain why you wish to know.

Already explained.

Your question is not an explanation.

Understanding the background of your personal atheism
tempers any discussion where your anti-religious zeal arises.

Are you willing to submit to the same "background check?"

Greg wrote What made you decide to be an Atheist?
Kane wrote Knowledge.

Greg
Was there an event or indoctrination
that lead to your "epiphany"?

Kane wrote LIfe.

That's not generally how such epiphanies come about.
Could you please be more honest about this?

No. I'm very honest about it as it is. Living life can be educational,
or it can be doing the same stupid things over and over again to
support failed agendas. So far I've managed to avoid the latter. And
you?


K What relevance is there to your questions?
G Directly relates to your reaction to the link you posted.

K While of course avoiding any discussion
K of what was at that link, right?

K I see you didn't want to get into the religous
K justification for beating children.

Sure, but understanding an atheists motivation
for attacking religion

Obviously you don't need to understand, Greg, as
you made up your mind I was attacking religion.

Did you think you were the first atheist to do so?

Non sequitur. Unless you think that all atheists attack religion.

If so, this proves again that you are bigot.

Or are you so deep into your atheism you don't even see it?

See what? That I'm not the first atheist to not attack religion, or
that your bigotted viewpoint that being one I must therefore mean to
attack religion?

When you fact it was beating USING religion as an excuse.

It was?

Yes. That's what I said.

would be as important as
understanding a fanatically religious participant
defending dogma would be.

No, I don't need to know his history to argue.
Why would you need to know mine?

Actually, dogmatists are fairly ...dogmatic
atheists are less so.

Again with the non sequitur. Your answer does not respond to my
statement and question.

Atheists by definition are not dogmatic as a group. I've a few that
were extremists, just as in any group, and mostly those that simply
aren't engaged in any debate on the issues.

Now would you care to argue the actual issue,
or do you think you are
smart with your all to obvious dodges?

No, she departs, on the issue CP, somewhat from what others say.

Golly I had NO IDEA you were pointing out a fruit cake!! (giggle)

In other words you don't wish to debate the issue. I see.

And not all Christians agree on the use of CP for discipline.

Like you thought they would?

Like I thought you'd like to argue.

Don't you?

I see you didn't want to get into the religous
justification for beating children, still.

Please comment on the article. We can save
the personal attacks for any old time.

Your entire motivation is an atheist version of jihadh or crusade.

Really? You know that I've posted this website link many times here,
Greg.

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

What would have been "an atheist version of jihadh or crusade" about my
doing so?

How does this change your personal crusade?

It would be inconsistent with your claim of 'jihadh or crusade'[sic]
for me to agree with anyone religious.

Does this blog author not defend the
beating of children by use of the Bible?
Yes, or no?
And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?

Greg wrote
You want to put them on trial vicariously through me?
Mental case!

Kane wrote
Hyperbole. You constantly attempt to use others
to put someone on trail, Greg.
And I asked your opinion, not for a trial.

In other words you cannot carry forword your argument. I see.

MY argument? Mental case!

Try to pull yourself together and answer anyway.

As I said, when you get over your cowardice, "Does this blog author not
defend the beating of children by use of the Bible? Yes, or no?
And you defend their choice, or disagree with it how?"

Why in hell would I do any of what you say? Jackass!

To debate rather than lie and dodge.

You are the one that responded to my post. I presume you are prepared
to defend a viewpoint.

I'll presume you are unable to defend your own position on the use of
CP unless you can cogently argue using this source I pointed out.

Why the heck would I use the source you pointed out?

Only in opposition. In other words don't go running off to some other
issue.

You may of course use any source you wish to defend your position
against the one on the source I pointed out.

Or defend what against what??

You are the one posting seemingly in opposition. Defend your views
against mine.

You may now add also, Sue Lawrences website, a Christian one that does
not agree with using pain to "train" children
http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/

Have you ever actually had success with scamming
people into arguing with you on YOUR TERMS?

Not liars, no.

They insist on making a claim, then dodging when they are asked to
respond to a challenge of their claim, just has you have been doing.

And my "TERMS" are the one's debaters use normally.

I offer you a piece of information. You argue against it, either by
asking questions that are not to the point, or when asked to defend
your arguement you run.

Feel free to make any argument you wish.

You'll be treated accordingly.

0:-]