| 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.

"Julie Pascal" wrote in message
...

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...


Julie Pascal wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message

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."

Is it? Yet even a zealot should have logic and fact on their side.

My point, exactly. There is absolutely no logic that exempts our
youngest
and most vulnerable members of US society from a practice that is
considered
not only cruel and unusual punishment but also physical assault for
anyone
over the age of 18.

Yeah.

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

--Julie

Absolutely Julie. These anti spanking zealots who attempt to push their
theories and practices on everyone else simply ignore the emotional damage
that they tend to do to children and refuse to accept that that is usually
much more damaging and much more lasting than a swat on the butt.

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
Julie,

Julie Pascal wrote: (to me)

And some idiot decided that "physical punishment" in the form
of push-ups was inappropriate for the Air Force (It seems that
infantry type services can justify the use of physical punishments
if they also work toward physical conditioning but not the Air
Force) and so instead of dropping for 20 or 50 and having the
infraction punished, done and *gone* while I was in basic,
there was an elaborate system of record keeping and delayed
punishment strategies that meant you might get chewed out (no
swearing allowed) when you least expected it from yet another
TI for some mistake that, it seemed, just never went away.

I understand that you are, or were, in the Air Force. Having never been a
member of the military, I cannot comment on your experiences. I do know
that
children are not members of the military. And what we are talking about
on
alt.parenting.spanking is the practice of physically hitting children in
the
name of discipline.

I thought you tried to link spanking with slave owning, or spousal abuse and
woman's sufferage? Now you want to make a distinction, when you were the
one who brought up that we don't allow physical punishment for adults?

You have to be consistant for your position to have much merit.


Unless someone punishes NOT AT ALL, physical discomfort
is only replaced with emotional and psychological discomfort,
manipulation and guilt.

Well, guess what? I'm an advocate for raising children within punishment.
I
advocate raising children with firm guidance and appropriate limits. This
can
be accomplished without punishment. I don't advocate parenting with
physical
discomfort, nor I advocate parenting with emotional and psychological
discomfort, manipulation, or guilt. And when this happens, I recommend
parents
apologize to their children, for none of is perfect.

And guess what, most studies over the past decades have shown that children
WANT and need guidance and discipline,and without it, have a great
resentment for their parents.

And I wonder how you enforce firm limits without outlining a consequence for
exceeding those limits? Suppose the child tells you where to go when you
tell him to go to his room? Or denying cartoons doens't work?

Children are different and each have different needs. that's the problem
with pushing a completely linear policy because you do not account for the
various needs of each individual child.


LaVonne



--Julie

"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

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"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

Jayne, what people like Kane and others refuse to accept is that the
majority of reasonable people DO indeed concern themselves with losing
control and winding up abusing their children. Their entire argument is
hinged upon their being able to convince everyone that anyone who uses
physical punishment, be it to teach a young toddler consequences for harmful
behavior, or to discipline an older child is somehow a monster who willfully
abuses children on a regular basis.

Their argument loses all merit when they try so hard to gain high moral
ground in this way, or attempt wild comparisons to slavery and other things
in an effort to make a point.

All methods work equally well when tempered and administered in a fair and
even handed manner, such as positive reinforcement for good behavior. But
they cannot see this, and it makes one quite suspect in their true reasons
to impose their sanctity on others.

Emotional damage can be much worse than a little physical pain, and much
more difficult to prove, but they will not even begin to challenge that
because they consider it much easier to villify anyone who disagrees with
their position as some sort of abusive monster.

"Kanga Mum" wrote in message
om...
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...
[ ]
Spanking IS a last resort.

Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while
you're
angry.

Best, Dan

Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.'

In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see
elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on circumstances
outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last resort
may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if Dad
is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation
totally unrelated to the child's behavior.

The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be
repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed by
external factors.

If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own protection
and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort'
doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the
boundaries are.

In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children that
the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their
protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how not
to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day
through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding,
leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a child
anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or not
get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last
resort method truly is random.

I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same
behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental
breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results. This
seems to teach the children that what they have no control in whether
or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked for
the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience,
which they can.


For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means
that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors. People
like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry. I
disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank
_because_ we are angry.

For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not jump
on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be spanked,
not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that
disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a
child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether he
is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has
made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally
knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry.

Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank. It
should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should it
be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is
determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating a
well-known rule.

I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank that
you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you
are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's behavior-
none of these things should be permitted to influence how many swats
on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the child
disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined
consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was
determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and you
simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations.


So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the child's
backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because a
child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a
safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have
nothing to do with it.

Kanga

I agree with much of what you wrote Kanga, that it should be a natural
consequence of inappropriate behavior when used as discipline. However, the
level of one's anger can and should be a determining factor indeed.

I think the difference is decided upon the age of a child. A toddler should
be disciplined immediately, else they will not understand the connection
between the swat and the action which caused the reaction.

However, in an older child, and some can be quite rebellious indeed, I would
wait until I cooled down before administering any punishment out of concern
for any excessiveness.

The point is the level at which the child can understand that the spanking
is a direct result of his/her actions, and that the child fully understand
that limits are there and will be enforced. All children will push the
limits and test them, and the earlier they are enforced, the earlier your
children learn that all actions have consequences and they choose the ones
which they prefer.

"Michael S. Morris" wrote in message
...




Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003


Kane:
Jayne, lots of folks have tried pulling my chain
only to discover I have hooked my end to a 220 volt
line with a switch. Don't play with me.

Kane, you are so full of it. You are so thoroughly warped
into some sort of myopic crusade by your own pseudo experiences
with the pathological that you see the same pathology everywhere.
And that feedback should have taught you something---namely that
you are simply bigtime wrong about it. Instead, you assume yourself
capable of pronouncing judgment on a whole culture, even to 90% of
its members (by your own count), and all we have to do is wait
a week or two, and your bull**** claimed "conservatism" turns
out predictably to be Bush-hatred and anti-fundie ranting (no,
make that *paranoic* Bush-hatred---never ceases to amaze me
since I make it that Bush is basically a 1980-1990 Democrat in
sheep's closing, and, no, I did not vote for the man).

You got me so wrong it isn't even close to funny, and Jayne is
a very liberal---left even---Canadian Christian, and I'll
bet money she is utterly sincere about parental frustration
with a misbehaving toddler, and you pull this macho act on her.
You demonstrate thereby only that you are incapable of reading
---words, people, books, or any of the culture you live in. And yet
you have dared to try and lecture us about empathy.

Look, you want to try and get it out of your system, my
name is Michael S. Morris, I live at 2731 Little Hurricane
Rd., Martinsville, IN, 46151 (765)349-2359. My place of
business is Morris Machine Co., Inc., 6480 S. Belmont St.,
Indianapolis, IN, 46217 (317)788-0371, and I have an office
at Butler: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Butler University,
4600 Sunset Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317)940-8318.

I do not hide behind an online pseudonym.

Mike Morris
)

Mike, has he accused you of being some unnamed, fictional nemisis that has
trolled him in the past? I have him filtered out so as to alleviate much
nonsense and repetition. But it seems to be a favored trick of his that if
he cannot gain the upper hand by attempting to villify someone as abusive,
then they must certainly be a troll stalking him.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
wrote:

[]
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.

If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you
are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and
humiliation. But I could be wrong.
[further abuse snipped]

You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule.
Aren't
you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe
that
preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you
about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an
alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You
have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing
spanking.
Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high
priority for you at all.

Jayne

His entire style is to vilify or attack those who choose to disagree with
him Jayne. I wouldn't take it personal.

"Michael S. Morris" wrote in message
...


Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003

[various snips]

Kane wrote:
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have
someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you?

I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne
for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected
by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the
same in my direction have been laughable.

Kane:
Get my drift here?

Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human
power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the
attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation"
is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for
ourselves.

Kane:
And you and I are adults...presumably.

As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her
pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however,
Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation.

[]

Kane:
Were you or any child you know spanked for
not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of
course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows
better than that.

What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate
that simple fact of learning to other areas of life.

What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity
of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction.

Kane:
A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been
hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976.

My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually:
If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded
on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising
adequately and that includes not letting them play near
the street.

This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child
play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the
child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he
can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for
every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the
child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in
all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way,
disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to
do what the child wants to do.

Mike, you apparently didn't read his nonsense in the other thread whereby
somehow, in his own twisted mind, he attempted to portray how he calmly sat
by while his three year old daughter climbed up on a fence where an agitated
bul was eyeing her intently.

I don't know what this was intended to prove, except that he was calm and
waited until after the danger was past to 'talk' to his daughter about how
bad a situation it was. To me, he has done nothing but show that he either
is a negligent parent or his nonsense about close supervision is just
another ploy to attempt to portray others as negligent.

Unless of course, that 'other' Kane is the person he claims is posting under
his name, the same nonsense somehow in order to discredit him..


Kane:
The second answer is in the Embry study.

The Embry study is so much bull****. My children were trained by
spanking not to run out in the street. My children habitually reached
(and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when
in a parking lot. They stop at the edge of the street when walking
along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing.
That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along
the
sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become
self-discipline,
and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if
supervise them in the way you are suggesting.

Kane:
Children told what to do have
an out from the behavior you want stopped.

"Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The
trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump."

Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one.

This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever
seen. A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who
is small and is jumping on a bed. My daughter Helen injured herself
quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down
face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front
teeth
all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody
mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency
room
and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did.

You can break a neck on a trampoline.
And I think permitting children to jump on one before
those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to
keep things in control and follow the safety rules is
taking a big risk. Life is not risk-free, but the idea is
to bring them to the point where they know the risks,
act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take
them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves.

And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is
certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of
the risks.

Mike Morris
)

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
t...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message
...

"Kane" wrote in message
m...

[]
So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you
pain and humiliate you?
[]

Since you have so little credibility, I was basically unaffected.

BTW, I am very pleased with the results of spanking my 2 year old.
After
just one day he has learned to obey the command "no touching". I wish
I
had
tried this sooner.

Just a swat or two to emphasize what he needed to learn?

Yes, I didn't have to really hurt him at all. I'd been so afraid that I
would get angry and hurt him, but it wasn't like that. I just focussed on
being calm and consistent.

What was he touching?

The computer, the oven and the dishwasher. No matter how much I
child-proof
things there are always some things that need to be off limits.

Jayne

There you go girl. You've just put forth another example of kane's nonsense
that all spanking must surely be 'pain and humiliation', a phrase he's used
dozens of times over and over.

He cannot comprehend that more often than not, on a toddler, they are more
affected by the fact that you DID punish them than any physical pain, and
the lesson sticks.

He gives human toddlers much less credit for learning ability by reaction
and consequence to an action then dogs or even rats which studies show react
to the situation, not the person administering the tests...