If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:23:05 GMT, "Dennis Hancock"
wrote: "Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:bu4jb.780770$uu5.136098@sccrnsc04... "Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ... "Byron Canfield" wrote in message news:acOib.768006$uu5.134118@sccrnsc04... "Doan" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote: Ray Drouillard wrote: "LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... 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, I disciplined my children without resorting to hitting them. Good for you. But that is not the issue. The issue here is how is it better? I have been challenging you for years to show me one "peer-reviewed" study in which, under the same condition, your non-cp alternatives are any better. So far, all you could do is avoid the issue, launch personal attacks against me. How about it, Dr. LaVonne? Doan The burden of proof is on you, Doan, to prove that committing acts of physical violence on other people accomplishes the ostensible goal when it is already apparent to so many that it is not necessary and is so obviously harmful.. Since you are proposing an alternative to system that is time-honored and proven successful, the burden of proof is upon you. "Time-honored" and "proven successful"? How do you figure? So, let's see, the fact that we have a massively disproportionate increase in the number of people in prison for violent offenses to the increase in population makes committing acts of violence upon impressionable youth "time-honored" and "proven successful" -- is that the proof you mean? Byron, and the increase in crime has skyrocketed in recent years, especially since we've been bombarded with psychobabble about how bad it is to spank a child. Many are growing up as spoiled brats, without any form of discipline in their lives and grow to adulthood and add to the problem. This is a myth proven by the ancient's declarations of the same just because teens going through their angst and separation preparation are so silly and weird. I engage them all the time, the more dangerous looking the better. They invariably turn out to be little sweetie pies trying to look mature...r r r r. Those that cast them in the role of evil teen would do well to remember that people will respond as we protray them. You need to check out the crime rate for teens...it's been going down for years, along with teen pregnancies. The media leads a lot of folks astray. Did you see CBS lead everyone in the country astray about home schoolers by broadcasting a story of four families (one of which never WAS a homeschool family) that had the tragedy of murders happen to them? It was a complete crock. One family wasn't known to two states child protective services with drug convictions for the father, and failure to protect and abuse as well. The state was after them to clean up their act just before the alleged murder suicide. Two other cases were clearly mental illness, and the failure was with other systems, not homeschooling. We know, if we homeschool and follow it, that children are safer in those homes than anywhere else. Just in incidence of child sexual abuse with school teacher and other child caregivers as the perps shows that....but no story on that. There has always been a situation of 'abuse' and 'spanking', two completely different terms which most of those 'enlightened' among us try to combine. We don't "combine" them. You apologists and spankers make that claim about us when we have carefully explained that even YOU folks can't define the two as separate and in the end horrible beatings get portrayed as just justifiable corporal punishment. Please don't try this old line on us. Anyone who does not spank a very young child to teach them discipline and not do somethin dangerous is putting their child's life at risk. Since the child cannot determine what is dangerous from one incident to the next unless conditions and the enviroment are exactly the same you folks completely miss the point. They aren't afraid of the danger...they are afraid of YOU, the more present and unpredictible danger. So they behave when you are around. They don't when you aren't because they don't know what you want. You take luck as success. Or the barrier you put up between them and the danger you discount. No, the burdon of proof is on those who come up with the new theories. Really? Who made that rule? I recall similar claims about slavery and chattel holding, as in women and children as property. For all of those who were simply 'spanked' as young children and went bad, there are millions of others who went on to become great leaders and members of the community, a great deal of them do NOT abuse their children, but are intelligent enough to understand the difference between disciplining them for their own safety and abusing them. Well, that's a beautiful declaration, but based on nonsense. Those who suffered spankings of a low enough order and frequency had a much better chance of surviving it so that the effects weren't all that apparent, but they are there, nontheless. Their native capacity to survive helped them out. But many that got no more than that really didn't do too well. Look around the world. Tell me you like the way we treat each other. Now just how low in spanking intensity and frequency must we go to improve things? I'd say give a shot to looking at non-punitive parenting...developmental support and enhancement, with appropriate redirection. I've posted recently on this. And we that don't punish are a bit annoyed that you'd assume because we don't spank we aren't teaching our children and helping them survive. Care to explain the Embry study? It has applications in other areas as well. There is nothing about the unwanted behavior of street entry that wouldn't cross over to the unwanted behavior of touching hot stoves, or not handling our cutlery, or leaving daddy's sharp tools alone. All without punishing. I have to assume, though you may wish to deny it, and of course I could be wrong, after 45 years or so of observation and analysis, that you believe as you do as a result of being spanked and the certain effect on your thinking....as in thinking errors. It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't respond any other way but to chuckle. chuckle Kane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... [] It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't respond any other way but to chuckle. chuckle Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I have decided to try it. Jayne |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Jane wrote
Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I have decided to try it. ROFL Rolling On Floor Laughing hysterically! Jane: I supported you in your choice before, and if you change that now. Kane represents the rabid side of anti-spanking. To me, only half of the issue regarding spanking is the scientific merits. (Weak or inconclusive) The other half is rooted in concern about people (like Kane) militantly pushing their views and deceiving lawmakers into passing laws removing parents CHOICE. As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to, but I am very leery of people like Kane who are anti-spanking and zealots about it. Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage) it all comes down to the parent making their OWN choice. Personally I think being against spanking is fine, but that no parent should ever be told they must never under any circumstances spank. In other words, "never say never". Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of socialist totalitarianism that would remove perogative and choice, replacing it with bureaucratic absolutism. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canadashould ban spanking
Greg Hanson wrote:
As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to, but I am very leery of people like Kane who are anti-spanking and zealots about it. This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and zealots about it." Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage) it all comes down to the parent making their OWN choice. Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making their OWN choice. Personally I think being against spanking is fine, but that no parent should ever be told they must never under any circumstances spank. In other words, "never say never". Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be able to own a slave. In other words, never say never. Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of socialist totalitarianism that would remove perogative and choice, replacing it with bureaucratic absolutism. Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for any reason. There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. LaVonne |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canadashould ban spanking
Parent/child is the same as owner/slave! Hey, let's give each child 40 acres and a mule! Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... ;-) On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote: Greg Hanson wrote: As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to, but I am very leery of people like Kane who are anti-spanking and zealots about it. This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and zealots about it." Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage) it all comes down to the parent making their OWN choice. Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making their OWN choice. Personally I think being against spanking is fine, but that no parent should ever be told they must never under any circumstances spank. In other words, "never say never". Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be able to own a slave. In other words, never say never. Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of socialist totalitarianism that would remove perogative and choice, replacing it with bureaucratic absolutism. Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for any reason. And the police still carry batons! ;-) Doan There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. LaVonne |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. You'll have to kill me first. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Wooly Baa Lamb" wrote in message ... LaVonne Carlson wrote: There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. You'll have to kill me first. Careful. that's next on their agenda. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message ... Greg Hanson wrote: As a pro-spanker I respect your choice not to, but I am very leery of people like Kane who are anti-spanking and zealots about it. This is like saying "As a slave-owner I respect your choice not to own slaves, but I am very leery of people like Kant who are anti-slavery and zealots about it." I knew the race issue would come in. How about saying as a citizen, I respect your choice not to imprison murderers, but I am very leery of people like Greg who are anti imprisonment zealots about it. Kinda comparing apples and oranges. One can use whatever wild comparisons they might make, but it doesn't make their case valid. Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence, (No more Sweden or UN garbage) it all comes down to the parent making their OWN choice. Until there is irrefutable and convincing evidence (No more non-slave states and government garbage) it all comes down to landowners making their OWN choice. Personally I think being against spanking is fine, but that no parent should ever be told they must never under any circumstances spank. In other words, "never say never". Personally I think being against slavery is fine, that that no landowner should every be told that under any circumstances should they ever be able to own a slave. In other words, never say never. Kane and LaVonne represent a sort of socialist totalitarianism that would remove perogative and choice, replacing it with bureaucratic absolutism. Kane and I, and many others, abhor the idea that children may be physically assaulted in the name of discipline, while every member of US society over the age of 18 enjoy protection from physical assault for any reason. The same faulty logic that Kane attempts to portray that any physical discipline MUST be a physical assault. And the same faulty logic that claims that pain and humiliation is not put forth on adults almost on a daily basis. There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. What arguments has he used which had been used to support slavery, spousal abuse, and the postition that women could not own property or vote? A parent has a RESPONSIBILITY to teach their child right from wrong, to keep them from harm, and to teach them discipline in order that they can survive in the adult world. One has never argued that responsibility esists. towards slavery or spousal abuse, or women's rights. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. What does that have to do with a parent's responsibilities to their children? There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. LaVonne Children are already protected in the US, and abusers are punished when they are found. A quirk in US law which states that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law predicates that someone else dictate how parents rear their children. I notice that the anti spanking zealots do not even begin to address the damage that emotional abuse causes millions of children every year. And that is much more difficult and less defined legally, but then taking on that challenge wouldn't be quite as easy now would it? No, far too easy to simply portray spankers as abusers and keep re definining the limits in an attempt to take away any control a parent has over a child's development. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
... "Kane" wrote in message om... [] It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't respond any other way but to chuckle. chuckle Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I have decided to try it. Jayne Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument than I've made so far? I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those professionally involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary families, a huge number of homeschooling families. Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by pointing out how I might improve my argument. Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you share with me your reasons for believing that? And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or could I say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank? Thank you, Kane |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message ... "Kane" wrote in message om... [] It's so apparent in that "spanking is not abuse" claim that I can't respond any other way but to chuckle. chuckle Well, Kane, you've convinced me. I have never spanked my children in the past, but you have done such a horrible job of arguing against it, that I have decided to try it. Jayne Your facitiousness aside; what would be a more convincing argument than I've made so far? I wasn't being facetious. This thread really has convinced me to try spanking. I had nearly 40 years study, 31 of those professionally involved with mentally ill youth, incarcertated men, ordinary families, a huge number of homeschooling families. Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority. Since you aren't a spanker then you might be willing to help me by pointing out how I might improve my argument. Possibly you could convince me that spanking is better. Could you share with me your reasons for believing that? I do not have a good method of discipline for children before the age of reason. This is probably the greatest weakness in my parenting skills and makes the toddler years extremely stressful for our whole family. Our toddler is a danger to himself and others, not to mention property, because I have no way to control him. I am so stressed by trying to watch him every instant that I can not enjoy being around my family. I am burnt out and shortchanging everyone. I desperately need a way to put some limits on this child. And if you really didn't spank your children why not? And what did or could I say to a non-spanking parent that would convince them to spank? I have struggled with the fault of being short-tempered ever since I can remember. I have been afraid that I would lose control of myself if I used corporal punishment and might really hurt my children. But Mike impressed me with his point that leaving it as a last resort is what is likely to lead to losing control. Everything he said made sense, while your points were lost in nastiness and insults. Jayne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |