| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote:



Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

Ray Drouillard wrote:
Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000
[...]
The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
prohibit all forms of violence against children,
however light, within the family, in schools and
in other institutions where children might be placed."
[...]
Paul:
For more context,
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and
the report by the Canadian delegation
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm

I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
other than outrageously objectionable.

You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
your children at your whim?

Fancy that.

It seems to me a prime
example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
address,

On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies
show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and
if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

and then bolster social engineering programs with
"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.

"Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children
using physical and psychological pain.

Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
woodshed.

Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how
to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
each other about what you are doing.

In
my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
adults.

Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report
they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the
same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an
outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was
escalated to injury.

The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.

Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs
of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.

It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
right to oppose this Convention.

What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to
liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other
conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do
NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
spank.


Mike Morris
)

Have a good one, Mike.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote:



Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

Ray Drouillard wrote:
Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in Geneva
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000
[...]
The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
prohibit all forms of violence against children,
however light, within the family, in schools and
in other institutions where children might be placed."
[...]
Paul:
For more context,
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and
the report by the Canadian delegation
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm

I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
other than outrageously objectionable.

You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure, torture,
your children at your whim?

Fancy that.

It seems to me a prime
example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
address,

On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan studies
show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks, and
if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

and then bolster social engineering programs with
"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.

"Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach children
using physical and psychological pain.

Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind the
woodshed.

Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn how
to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie to
each other about what you are doing.

In
my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad behaviour
of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
adults.

Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some of
those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens report
they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least the
same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse is an
outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so was
escalated to injury.

The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your nonsense.

Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that a
child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows signs
of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.

It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
right to oppose this Convention.

What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is exclusive to
liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank either
stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of other
conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who do
NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
spank.


Mike Morris
)

Have a good one, Mike.

Kane


I have seen the social engineer types massage their data. Statistics
are easy to wield in a deceptive manner, and most people don't have the
skill to figure out how they are being deceived.

Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.



Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
maker gave to us:


Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left to
himself causes shame to his mother.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he
will not depart from it.




Ray

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:

It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
and start stirring up the mud.

No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.
And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions
about spanking with "mud," don't you.

I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
that is saved to his or her hard drive.

No, it's spontaneous, though I do have some sources and citations with
quotes archived. It's a pain to have to wade through the piles of
dross of the spanking enthusiasts to once again rub their noses in
their nonsense.

I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never
have.

Hmmmmm....?

I note that after the first exchange, when you can no longer answer
with your denial of the pain and humiliation of the child you move
right to trying to kill the messenger.

Coward.


Everybody loves.....

Ray

mond.

Me too. I'd love you even more if you'd stop defending the pounding of
children and pretending it is a loving spanking.

I hope you reform. May I point you to:

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org

"Treat children as you would have them
treat you when they're grown."

For they very well might.

The New Testament freed you. Why not accept it?

Kane



"MaG Douglas" wrote in message
...
Trip Trap, Trip Trap went the middle goat's hooves on the bridge.
"Who's that crossing my bridge?" asked the _ _ _ _ _.

Ho hum... another bit of crossposted tripe.

MaG


"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:54:34 -0500, "Michael S. Morris"
wrote:



Thursday, the 9th of October, 2003

Ray Drouillard wrote:
Committee on the Rights of the Child issues decision in
Geneva

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35000
[...]
The U.N. body says Canada should "explicitly
prohibit all forms of violence against children,
however light, within the family, in schools and
in other institutions where children might be placed."
[...]
Paul:
For more context,
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0338e.htm and
the report by the Canadian delegation
http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/crc0329erev1.htm

I'm not sure that any context could make this kind of
action against the corporal punishment of children in the home
other than outrageously objectionable.

You are outraged that you cannot bully, humiliate, injure,
torture,
your children at your whim?

Fancy that.

It seems to me a prime
example of legislation by people who appoint themselves as
scientific experts on stuff that science cannot possibly
address,

On the contrary. Science does address this issue. Brain scan
studies
show that distractions inhibit and distract from learning tasks,
and
if you aren't spanking to teach what ARE you doing it for?

and then bolster social engineering programs with
"studies" that do not show what they purport to show.

"Social engineering" is what YOU do when you proport to teach
children
using physical and psychological pain.

Your opponents at least aren't taking you literally out behind
the
woodshed.

Whose the more honorable party, those that want parents to learn
how
to teach their children without the deliberate use of pain and
humiliation or those, such as you, that want to continue to lie
to
each other about what you are doing.

In
my opinion, the decline of the widespread acceptance of spanking
in the US is directly correlated with the widespread bad
behaviour
of children in the US, not to mention a whole lot nastier set of
adults.

Actually you are completely wrong. In the US, for instance, some
of
those "unscientific" studies show that 90% or more of citizens
report
they have been spanked. Children are being spanked at at least
the
same, or possibly greater rates than in the past and more abuse
is
an
outgrowth of spanking that didn't work (as it mostly doesn't) so
was
escalated to injury.

The nastiness you are experiencing in people comes precisely from
being humiliated and tortured by parents who believe your
nonsense.

Non spanked children are consistently better behaved and far less
likely to be involved in criminal activity. And I don't mean that
a
child who is spanked then when not spanked for a few weeks shows
signs
of improvement. I mean a consistently gently parented child.

It looks to me like US conservatives were exactly
right to oppose this Convention.

What makes you think the idea of not spanking children is
exclusive
to
liberals? I'm a conservative and I consider those that spank
either
stupid, ignorant, or vicious, not to mention socially maladjusted
because of the spankings they got as a child. I know plenty of
other
conservatives that agee with me, and rather a lot of liberals who
do
NOT extend their politics to their child rearing practices. They
spank.


Mike Morris
)

Have a good one, Mike.

Kane

On 9 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote:

It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
and start stirring up the mud.

No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.

I wonder if Kane has a standard rant
that is saved to his or her hard drive.

I wonder what made YOU think of that particular tactic though? I never
have.

If you *really* were a "serial lurker" in meh-sc, you'd know why he
thought that. Makes me think you're lying about your ng habits.


but,but...
Jon

"Kane" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:53:15 -0400, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:

It looks like one of those crusaders who google for certain key words
and start stirring up the mud.

No, actually I've been a serial lurker to this ng for some time now.
And I do think it unwise of you to equate your comments and opinions
about spanking with "mud," don't you.

Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude. People who
don't care about being rude, and who post on purpose to a list of
newsgroups in order to start a fight are trolls. Saying you aren't
is like spammers who send a "this is not spam" disclaimer to your
e-mail box, proving nothing except that they are a spammer *and*
a liar both.

Some trolls do it for fun... some trolls do it because it is
their nature. Being sincere is not an excuse.

--Julie

"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
...



Which newsgroup? Crossposting is *always* rude.

I'm sorry, Julie, but that is not correct. Crossposting is and has always
been part of the design of Usenet. It was designed that way to allow
discussions (and even arguments) to happen between groups. Using that
design, in and of itself, rude. It is using the Usenet as it was designed
to be used. You may not like it. You may not like the groups to which he
posted. That does not make his behavior rude either. If the thread is
offensive to you (for any reason).... well, that's what filters are for. If
you're using MS Outlook Express, you can simply click on Ignore Thread.

If he had picked a gazillion unrelated ngs and the thread had little to do
with any of the ngs' themes, then you would have a point. This is not the
case here. The fact that the groups included may (or may not) have
diametrically opposed viewpoints is also irrelevant. If people here only
want a select viewpoint to be included in the conversations, then they are
using the wrong medium. They should be making use of invitation-only email
lists.

Ray Drouillard wrote:


Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that our
maker gave to us:

Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.


Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he
will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that, isn't
it.

LaVonne

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Ray Drouillard wrote:


Kids who are raised without proper discipline end up being rotten
adults. One must only look around to see examples.

Yes, children both need and deserve proper discipline. What they do
not
need is physical assault in the name of discipline.

Of course, the real answer can be found in the "user's manual" that
our
maker gave to us:

Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, But one who loves
him is
careful to discipline him.

Pro 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child: The rod of
discipline drives it far from him.

And Deuteronomy recommends stoning children to death for rebellious
behavior. Do you recommend killing children who do not obey, or do
you
prefer selective Biblical interpretation and application? By the way,
nothing in the NT suggests that Jesus would recommend hitting and
hurting a
little child with rods or anything else.


Pro 23:13 Don't withhold correction from a child. If you punish him
with
the rod, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish him with the rod, And save his soul from Sheol.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Pro 29:15 The rod of correction gives wisdom, But a child left tto
himself causes shame to his mother.

And Deuteronomy recommends killing children. I must assume that if
you use
Proverbs to justify hitting children with rods, you also recommend
stoning
those children to death who remain rebellious.

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is
old he
will not depart from it.

And one can discipline and one can train without hitting and hurting a
child. And one can certainly parent without stoning children to
death.
Read the New Testament, Ray. And read the Old Testament. If you
advocate
everything in the Old Testament, you advocate capital punishment for
rebellious children, for adulterers, for women who are not virgins
when
they marry. Jesus' disciples tried this thinking when they desired to
stone the woman at the well. Jesus intervened. Funny about that,
isn't
it.

LaVonne


Again, the term "justify" is used.

Do you have to justify eating? Do you have to justify sleeping? You
justify bad things, not good things. Discipline is a good thing.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

The answer to that can be quite complex, but I'll make it simple and
leave out a whole lot of details.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the
law.

There is a whole lot more to it, of course. The Law was for the Jews,
not the Gentiles. Sacrifice no longer needs to be practiced because
Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. In the NT, God mad all food clean.
The list goes on.

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Now, moving on to the second part of my project at disassembling the
above argument:

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.



Ray Drouillard

Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form of
discipline.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like or
agree with.

So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water. Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government buildings.
City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city government
buildings.

Trying to use that argument is simply silly.

Attempting to refute as you did is what is truly silly.

Proverbs is not a book of law, but a book of wise counsel. We are free
to disregard it -- at our own risk, of course. God's wisdom does not
pass away. He may change the rules as the situation merits, but the
wise advice in Proverbs still stands.

So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament? I see nothing in His
words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting strategy.
In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into the
depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child. And when his disciplines
want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he stops
them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do, and a
lot more respect for little children.

LaVonne



Ray Drouillard

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Ray Drouillard wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...

And Deuteronomy recommends killing rebellious children. Since you
literally apply Proverbs, I'm sure you advocate killing as a form
of
discipline.

Also, we see the old trick of picking some part of the Law out and
using
that to discredit the Old Testament.

What you have done is pick and choose portions of the Old Testament to
justify your behavior, and ignore those portions that you do not like
or
agree with.

Actually, it looks like that is what you have done. You are trying to
justify your practice of not disciplining your children,

Proverbs 19:18 Discipline your son, for there is hope; Don't be a
willing party to his death.



So, that bit about stoning defiant children doesn't hold water.
Even if
it was still in effect, it couldn't be practiced because there are
no
city gates and no group of city officials hanging out there.

City gates can apply either to city limits or citiy government
buildings.
City officials may and do hang out at both city limits or city
government
buildings.

Interesting theory.

Still, that law is for a specific people at a specific time.

[...]


So why did Jesus so openly defy the Old Testament?

He is God. He can do what he considers to be best.

I see nothing in His
words that recommend hitting children with rods as a parenting
strategy.

Correct. Unlike the laws for divorce, he did not change the counsel
regarding child rearing.

In fact, he recommends a millstone around the neck and being cast into
the
depths of the sea for anyone who offends a child.

Right. And raising a child without discipline is pretty offensive.

And when his disciplines
want to stone a woman for wanton behavior )as the OT recommends), he
stops
them, forgives the woman, and tells her to "go and sin no more."

Right again. What does stoning have to do with spanking?


I think Jesus had a bit more understanding of the Bible than you do,
and a
lot more respect for little children.

Of course he is understanding. I'm certain that he understands that
disciplining children is crucial to their development.



Ray Drouillard