| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

Jon Houts wrote:

If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
Please post your sources.

I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
in the archives.

Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.

If you're going to be a good anti-spanking advocate, you should keep these
to give to anyone who asks. I shouldn't have to slog through 7 years of
your posts to find them.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Jon Houts wrote:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

Jon Houts wrote:

If you have studies that support your position, I'd love to read them.
Please post your sources.

I have posted these sources, and updated them since 1996. You can find them
in the archives.

Find them, read them, and lets discuss them.

If you're going to be a good anti-spanking advocate, you should keep these
to give to anyone who asks. I shouldn't have to slog through 7 years of
your posts to find them.

My thought exactly! Maybe, like used car salesmen, they don't want you
to look under the hood! ;-) Maybe because when non-cp alternatives are
compared under the same statistical scrutiny as with spanking, they came
out even worse. LaVonne has been dodging me ever since I challenged her
to produce a single "peer-reviewed" study where non-cp alternatives are
better when compared to spanking under the same condition. I have pointed
out to her that Straus & Mouradian (1998) found that the correlation
between anti-social behaviour (ASB) and non-cp alternatives are even
stronger than spanking. This was a surprise to stout anti-spanking
advocate like Straus the he had to admit:

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

It is funny than for someone who claimed to have a Ph. D. and have read
all the studies, like LaVonne, to continously make the same ERRONEOUS
argument!

Doan

"Jon Houts" wrote in message
...

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

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to explain to
us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.


{sarcastic mode on}

Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am just
being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the words. At any
rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date enough since there is an
iota of study required to understand the meaning of the word in its context.

{sarcastic mode off}

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

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

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to explain to
us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.


Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am just
being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the words. At any
rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date enough since there is an
iota of study required to understand the meaning of the word in its context.

Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall into sin
or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has two definitions
in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word that had one meaning 4
hundred years ago (which is now considered "obsolete") and a different
usage *today*?

but,but...
Jon

"Jon Houts" wrote in message

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

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

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
explain to us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of
"offend" above as being "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
misleading to a modern reader.


Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am
just being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the
words. At any rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date
enough since there is an iota of study required to understand the
meaning of the word in its context.

Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall
into sin or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has
two definitions in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word
that had one meaning 4 hundred years ago (which is now considered
"obsolete") and a different usage *today*?

Clearly you missed my point, Jon.

First of all, that depends on your dictionary. My Random House Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary (on CD, 1999) has these for the first two definitions
for _stumble_:

1. to strike the foot against something, as in walking or running, so as
to stagger or fall; trip.

2. to walk or go unsteadily: to stumble down a dark passage.

So my analogy is certainly valid.

Secondly, the same dictionary says of _offend_:

5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.

It does not label it an archaic/obsolete definition, and in fact clearly
marks it as Biblical English. Now, you may fret over the fact that this is
the fifth definition, but I had to go down three definitions in the same
dictionary to find the NASB's usage of 'stumble' in this verse.

Besides, I never said that the language of the KJV was never misleading to a
modern reader. There are a lot of modern readers and many of them have a
hard time reading. In fact, Kanga (whom you also tried to bait) and I have
bemoaned this very fact before.


Now, the bottom line, as it applies to Bible versions, is that this is not
even the main issue. Your objection to the word 'offend' being used here is
not enough to argue *for* a modern version unless the modern version's
primary goal is to simply update the language so that the meanings of the
words it uses are found in the third definition instead of the fifth
definition of a dictionary. Find me a modern popular version that does this
without removing verses or changing "begotten Son" to "begotten God" (NASB)
and we'll talk a little more.


PS: Get your NASB out and read Job 34:31, Jer 23:13, Ro 5:14, 1Pe 2:8 and a
few other verses. Then get your word processor handy and write a letter to
the Lochman Foundation complaining that they are using obsolete English and
need to update their version more often. You might then consider doing a
simple search in your own version for the word you are claiming the KJV has
that is archaic and just make sure your new and improved version doesn't use
the exact same word in the exact same context, too.

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

Does ""Frank"" like or dislike you, Kane?
Is he a friend or foe? Neither makes any sense.

Why would he repost your exact isues/opinions for many weeks?

Under the name fandrews?
How is that an attempt to impersonate you?

On 2 Nov 2003 15:17:52 -0800, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Does ""Frank"" like or dislike you, Kane?

He is a troll I have canned a number of times. I'd presume he doesn't
like me. His last post was a taunting one.

Is he a friend or foe? Neither makes any sense.

I have no way of knowing but I wonder if the real Frank Andrews is the
same as the FAndrews we are discussing.

Why would he repost your exact isues/opinions for many weeks?

To harrass?

He has posted under fandrews 8 times in less than three weeks. Unless
he continues I'm not going to worry about him. He'll just pop up under
another name if I bother to go after him.


Under the name fandrews?

That was the addy.

How is that an attempt to impersonate you?

As I have already pointed out to you asshole, he pasted his addy over
a post I made to Usenet that was highjacked and removed from Usenet.

His prime motivation wasn't to impersonate me as far as I can tell,
just to harrass. Or he wouldn't have given it up and then gloated.
Looks kinda like one of your friends.

If he is who I think he is this has gone on since about 1981 or 82
when I first kicked his butt on Fidonet.

Kane

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Brandon wrote:

"Jon Houts" wrote

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

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
explain to us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of
"offend" above as being "obsolete") language of the KJV isn't
misleading to a modern reader.


Hmm... reading this in the NASB would seem to indicate that because I
accidentally tripped my son once I should be drowned. Or maybe I am
just being lazy and not actually reading but just looking at the
words. At any rate, clearly the up-to-date NASB is not up-to-date
enough since there is an iota of study required to understand the
meaning of the word in its context.

Funny. First definition of "stumble" in Webster's? "1 a : to fall
into sin or waywardness" Do you really think that a word that has
two definitions in common usage *today* is the same thing as a word
that had one meaning 4 hundred years ago (which is now considered
"obsolete") and a different usage *today*?

Clearly you missed my point, Jon.

First of all, that depends on your dictionary. My Random House Webster's
Unabridged Dictionary (on CD, 1999) has these for the first two definitions
for _stumble_:

Of course, someone like LaVonne isn't going to look in any dictionary
because she *knows* what the word means (at least in today's terms,
anywhere other than the KJV Bible).

1. to strike the foot against something, as in walking or running, so as
to stagger or fall; trip.

2. to walk or go unsteadily: to stumble down a dark passage.

So my analogy is certainly valid.

Not really.

Secondly, the same dictionary says of _offend_:

5. (in Biblical use) to cause to fall into sinful ways.

However low :to cause to sin" falls in the list of definitions, it's still
in use today other than in the NASB. "Offend" still only mean that "in
Biblical use."

It does not label it an archaic/obsolete definition, and in fact clearly
marks it as Biblical English. Now, you may fret over the fact that this is
the fifth definition, but I had to go down three definitions in the same
dictionary to find the NASB's usage of 'stumble' in this verse.

I'm not fretting over number, but over the fact that that definition of
"offend" isn't likely to be found by a modern reader *except* in the KJV.

Besides, I never said that the language of the KJV was never misleading to a
modern reader. There are a lot of modern readers and many of them have a
hard time reading. In fact, Kanga (whom you also tried to bait) and I have
bemoaned this very fact before.

It was my recollection that either you or Kanga had poo-poo-ed the idea
that such misunderstandings could occur. I thought that one or both of
you had bemoaned the fact that people didn't know certain words in the KJV
that aren't in use today.

Now, the bottom line, as it applies to Bible versions, is that this is not
even the main issue. Your objection to the word 'offend' being used here is
not enough to argue *for* a modern version unless the modern version's
primary goal is to simply update the language so that the meanings of the
words it uses are found in the third definition instead of the fifth
definition of a dictionary. Find me a modern popular version that does this
without removing verses or changing "begotten Son" to "begotten God" (NASB)
and we'll talk a little more.


PS: Get your NASB out

....ain't got one, but I looked up the verses you posted below in the NIV,
and I'm guessing that the NASB is similar.

and read Job 34:31, Jer 23:13, Ro 5:14, 1Pe 2:8 and a
few other verses. Then get your word processor handy and write a letter to
the Lochman Foundation complaining that they are using obsolete English and
need to update their version more often.

Let's see...the for "offend" or "offensive" appears in these in the NIV,
BUT IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS IT'S USED TODAY. Cute, but I refuse to believe
you're so stupid as to think that my problem is with the word rather than
the definition as used in Matthew 18 in the KJV.

You might then consider doing a
simple search in your own version for the word you are claiming the KJV has
that is archaic and just make sure your new and improved version doesn't use
the exact same word in the exact same context, too.

Surely you can see that it's not the same.


but,but...
Jon

If it bothers you to have archaic or hard-to-understand words in a Bible,
then I think you should have a look at the NIV. You may have heard of it,
but it is already over 20 years old and is need of some serious updating.
Honestly, I can't understand how anyone can possibly read through it. I
mean, check this out:

The NIV uses the word "abutted" in Eze 40:18. The more modern KJV uses the
word "against."

The NIV uses the word "alcove" in Eze 40:13. The easier to understand KJV
uses the words "little chamber."

The NIV uses "annotations" in 2Chr 13:22. The simpler KJV uses "stories."

The NIV uses "breakers" in Ps 93:4. The up-to-date KJV uses "waves."

The NIV uses "brood" in Isa 57:4. The obviously more accessible KJV uses
"children."

The archaic NIV uses "colonnade" in Re 1Ki 7:6. The KJV uses "porch."

The overly complex NIV uses "disheartened" in Eze 13:22. The KJV makes this
simpler with "sad."

Do you know what enrollment is? The NIV doesn't. It uses "enrollment" in
2Chr 17:14. I mean, how is a modern reader supposed to understand that they
didn't actually enroll in a class?

The NIV has "haunt" in Ps 44:19. Since we all know that "haunt" is
something ghosts do, the KJV updated this to "place."

Since "magi" in the NIV at Mt 2:1 could easily conjur up visions of wizards,
the KJV has the more clear "wise men."

What the heck does "ravening" mean (NIV, Jer 2:30)? Don't worry, the KJV
has "destroying."


Now please: when you think of a THONG, do you *really* envision something
Jesus would wear? You see, the old NIV was written before the modern
popular "Thong Song."
(http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/c...hong_Song.html ) They
wouldn't understand that TODAY, when we talk about thongs, we are talking
about what in THOSE days (when the NIV was translated) was called a
"G-string." Don't worry about what the dictionary says because face it, when
kids think about thongs, they aren't thinking about shoelaces. So it is
obviously a BAD THING to have John messing with the Lord's thong in Luke
3:16. So the more modern KJV translators, not wanting a raunchy R&B song to
be brought to mind when reading the Bible, change "thong" to "latchet."
Sure, "latchet" has two syllables, and that may leave some people behind,
but we think you'll agree that it's a worthwhile trade-off.


Tongue planted firmly in cheek...

--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

"Jon Houts" wrote in message
...

On 12 Oct 2003, Kane wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote

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.

Odd, he spoke directely to them and you have have disregarded the
meaning below.

No, Ray's rightly disregarding your (and LaVonne's) misinterpretation
of
the passage in question.

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

This would be another great opportunity for Brandon or Kanga to
explain to
us how the archaic (Webster's lists the meaning of "offend" above as
being
"obsolete") language of the KJV isn't misleading to a modern reader.


shame shame shame... you *knew* that you would automatically get his
goat by pushing that button. It isn't even a free will or freedom of
choice issue. It's more in the stimulus/response paradigm. Stimulus:
hint that the KJV isn't the bestest and mostest wonderfulest
translation. Response: Brandon posts well-worded intellectual rebuttal.

Come on, Jon... you knew it was going to happen. It's so predictable.
Admit it; you did it on purpose.


Ray Drouillard
(who isn't going to get into this one)