| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

"Doug" wrote in message
ink.net...
Kane writes:

Kane has shared with us that he
perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood.

"Perceived"? R R R You call some fat kid half again as big as me
sitting on my chest pounding my face a perception?

Hi, Kane!

Your description of children bullying you is your perception, yes. Who
else's would it be?

Kane set upon a
mission to physically assault the children.

I did? And what were those things I did to do that, oh word twister?

My understanding of the mission you described was that you hit the kids
and
broke enough noses that you could not later count them all up. I
understood
you to say that you "whipped ass" after age 11, but still lived in fear.
You
spent a lot of time hitting kids bigger than you that thought your mild
manner made you an easy target. Once other children learned that you
could
hit after age 11, they left you alone.

Here is what you said exactly:

"I was a typical little squirt until I was about 15. Spent a good deal
of time dealing with kids much larger than me that thought the mild
mannered one was an easy target. Can't tell you how many noses I
broke.

"When I hit fifteen nature caught up and I grew and grew. The sight of
me was enough to discourage bullies, added to the knowledge that other
bullies that had mixed with me knew what I could do, and the rest of
my school years were easy.

"But despite the fact I could and did whip ass after age 11 or so,
having to live in fear was very distracting and to me damaging. YOU,
silly ****, don't know what you are talking about."

You are not really going to "try and claim that hitting isn't violence,
are
you?"

He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he
broke.

Try quoting in context.

I have included the actual quotes in this post.

Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him.

Bullies have now become "children." How interesting.

They were children.

A 15 year old 180
pound adversary who still outweighed me by 30 lbs or so and attacked
ME thinking I was still a little kid is hardly a "children."

If the 15 year old is not a child, what is he/she? You did not mention
the
age or weight of any of those you perceived as "bullies" so I wouldn't
know
how old the countless other kids with broken noses were.

It's nice to see you are true to form with your creative misleading of
the readers. You never seem to tire of it.

Is that "the same kind of nonsense thinking that goes with "spanking isn't
hitting?"
But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather
violent, abusive childhood.

Really? Compared to who?


As you mentioned, encountering bullies in the playground at age 11 is
commonplace. Breaking their noses isn't.

So tell us about your childhood Dung. I'll bet it was a doozy.


I had a wonderful childhood. Loving, nurturing parents and lots of
adventures with friends. Some might consider it boring -- grew up in an
upper middle class neighborhood on the Pacific Coast.

Family-system theorists may hold that he
bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim.

Do you find it easy to label someone as a bully who is using words on
a medium where we can't even see each other?


Since I don't know you at all, attempting to label you with a DSM-IV label
would be foolish. I did agree with the reader I responded to that your
written attacks against some members of this group was bullying.

Do YOU feel bullied by me, Dung?


Not in the slightest. I do not perceive myself among those members who
have
received bullying replies. I did not feel bullied as a child, either.

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.

The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe
pseudo-events
involving children -- is troublesome.

Please define "pseudo-events." I find your writing absolutely
fascinating.


Thank you.

You have a habit of generalizing a population by providing a set of
exacting
descriptions of a particular incident that plausably could have occurred
once. For example, in writing about all children who are substantiated:
"CPS offices are filled with children with spiral fractures to their legs
and cigarette burns on their hands." Since the specific description is
applied to the general population, the description is a pseudo-event.
First, CPS offices are not filled with children injured in this way; in
fact, they are not filled with children in any condition. Second, the
majority of children substantiated by CPS are neither abused or neglected
in
any way, but substantiated as being "at risk" of future maltreatment. Of
those children who are substantiated for actual abuse -- which account for
around 10% of substantiated cases -- the injuries are generally much less
severe than the horrid picture you paint. Such major injuries represent
less than 1% of substantiated cases.

And who would I be troubling writing here in USENET? Are you the
morals police?


No.

Family-systems folks would lay the
blame on his parents or foster caregiver.

Odd, I had tons more gentle treatment and loving care than most kids
of my age and time. Why would you assume anyone mistreated me? My
foster parents, friends of my parents, were very good to me.


I would not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, many caseworkers
applying family systems theory would. This is one of the basic flaws in
CPS
practice today -- assuming that a child's violent behavior is the fruit of
parental wrongdoing.

You have claimed, for instance, that children who are spanked are more
likely to be violent.

Others would say he is a
self-made man.

We all are self made. Views to the contrary are a result of
conditioning by a society invested in control of the individual to his
or her detrement.


I absolutely and totally agree with you. I submit that government
agencies
inclination to blame parents as causal for a child's misbehavior or
"acting
out" is the procedure of a government invested in control of families.

But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as
reflective of them.

You speak for USENET posters to these ngs we frequent?


Good point. No, I don't speak for any other member of these newsgroups.
Now that you have pointed it out, I can see how my statement clearly
implies
that I know what other members are thinking. I do not. I apologize for
the
transgression.

He speaks volumes about himself.

You speak for me now?


No, I think you speak volumes about yourself.

I find that you, on the other hand, are a master at concealing who and
what you are. I've had to read your posts for sometime to uncover some
interesting things about you.

One of the things I've noticed from the beginning though is that you
are quick to attempt to preempt folks should they appear the least
vulnerable, as child spankers almost invariably are.


I disagree. If you have an example of this practice you accuse me of, I
would be happy to consider it. I do not believe that I have ever
preempted
folks I perceive to be vulnerable.

Whatever you perceive you have "uncovered" about me is simply your
construction. It is not likely to have anything to do with me.

If you are saying that your discovery is that I have spanked children, you
are wrong. I have raised 4 children and two step-children. I have never
spanked any of them. I believe it is up to parents to decide which
methods
of disclipline to use. Spanking is not my choice for a number of reasons.

But, again, families vary tremendously. Children are different. Parents
are different. Situations are different. So, whether to spank or not to
spank is up to the parent's descreation.

It most certainly is NOT a decision the government has any right in
making,
as current law in all fifty states makes clear.

Ready to come clean yet, Dung?


About what? I have always been forthright in this forum. The only
mysteries are those you harbor in your head. You just shared with us one
of
your guesses. You were wrong.

Ready to guess again?

Gee, and I got accused of just being a fictional troll of kane's in another
thread, glad to see I'm not the only delusion he's been suffering.

Since I filtered him out of my scan, it's amazing to see the same, tired old
tactics being used against anyone who even slightly disagrees with his wild
fantasy world.

Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
where a guy had sex with his daughters to
continue the line? Lott I think.
Something to do with no other women on earth?
Does this story feature prominently in
Child Protection literature?

Because I once read a textbook case where
a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
because of that story. Child removals and all.

Do you have a monograph on that?

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
where a guy had sex with his daughters to
continue the line? Lott I think.
Something to do with no other women on earth?
Does this story feature prominently in
Child Protection literature?

Google it, Greg.

Let us know what you find.

Because I once read a textbook case where
a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
because of that story.

What book was that, Greg?

Child removals and all.

Do you have a monograph on that?

How 'bout yerself, Greg?

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
Kane, Have you ever heard of a bible story
where a guy had sex with his daughters to
continue the line?

That is not the strict truth. He did not willingly have sex with his
daughters.

Lott I think.

You don't think: you babble.

His name, assuming others reading this have read of him, is Lot. I
suppose the spelling doesn't matter as I believe the first rendering
of this story outside of Judeaism is in the Greek. I don't know who to
render his name in Greek in this forum.

Something to do with no other women on earth?

Your knowledge on this issue YOU brought up shows exactly how much you
usually know about anything you discuss....very damn little.

The truly dispicable thing Lot did, from the viewpoint of some, is,
that when the crowd in Sodom beat upon his door seeking women to
ravage he considered, and may have, offered up his daughters. They did
however escape with Lot from the city before it's destruction.

They found themselves living in a cave for some time and believing the
entire world was destroyed except for themselves felt they were the
salvation of humankind and they got their father drunk and lay with
him thinking they would become pregnant and thereby repeople the
earth.

Does this story feature prominently in
Child Protection literature?

Any CP literature I've happened to read, and I've not read that much,
hasn't mentioned the story.

Because I once read a textbook case

Where did you read this? I'd like to see if you are lying as usual.

where
a caseworker slammed a family for being religious
because of that story. Child removals and all.

Did the man of family offer up his children for others to use
sexually? It's not unknown as one of the things druggies do with their
kids to get money for drugs or the drugs themselves. Or, like Lot's
daughters, did the daughters seduce the father?

Do you have a monograph on that?

What an odd question. Are you drinking your bong water again?

Why would you use a religious story in a post to me? By know you know
I'm an athiest. Did you think because I am one I wouldn't know the
answer to your question and that you were, as usual, full of ****?

Now and again you'll meet athiests that while not very accepting on
'religiosity' (using religion as an excuse for bad behavior and
blaming god for things that men **** up on on their own very nicely
indeedy) are respectful of and knowledgable about religions.

My college minor was anthropology. I did considerable study in
comparative religions. Go away you worthless piece of child abusing
****.

Kane

Do you have a monograph on that?

How 'bout yerself, Greg?

I'm fine, thanks.

Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup thread called "Ray attempts Biblical justification"?

Because like you the caseworker was a rabid Atheist,
and they projected their anti-Christian belief into
their work. I don't know where I read it, but I
read either the caseworker report or the court case,
and certainly rememember the rediculous logic.

They could remove the kids of ANY religious family that way.

Dan and Kane: Please deny it in much stronger tones.
Then I get to watch you eat crow if I prove it.
What have you got to lose?

Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup called
Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?

Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
a rabid Atheist, and this is how their negative
views towards Christianity manifest itself.

I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.

I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
the caseworker logic is hard to forget.

I might be able to come up with it next week.

Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
than that. Show some real conviction in your belief.
If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...

snip

Dan and Kane: Please deny it in much stronger tones.

Deny what?

Then I get to watch you eat crow if I prove it.

Prove what?

What have you got to lose?

I know where you read it.

Why don't you remember?

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup called
Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?

Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
a rabid Atheist, and this is how their negative
views towards Christianity manifest itself.

I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.

I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
the caseworker logic is hard to forget.

I might be able to come up with it next week.

Don't bother.

It's part of a case I worked on.

Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
than that.

Denial of what?

Show some real conviction in your belief.

Beluef of what?

If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

45 minutes later and all you come up with this?

On 13 Nov 2003 01:01:17 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Why would you use a religious story in a post to me?

In a newsgroup called
Ray attempts Biblical justification..spanking?

There is no connection between the thread and your post to ME. I
didn't start the thread, nor did I pursue a biblical arguement or
biblical counter arguement, though that's not a bad idea.

Because, like you, the caseworker apparently was
a rabid Atheist,

But I just posted my position on religion. Why would you call an
athiest, myself, who defines himself as being tolerant and respectful
of religion as "rabid?"

I have the luxury, being a respectful athiest, of accepting that I
could be wrong...most athiests would be advised to do the same. It's
something the religionists are usually not capable of. Some will chop
your head off at the suggestion.

Now apologize for mistakenly calling me "rabid" and I'll apologize for
thinking you don't have the guts and manhood to admit you are wrong.

and this is how their negative
views towards Christianity manifest itself.

The issues wasn't a CPS issue. YOU brought that in.

This was entirely a matter of a spanking debate, though certainly some
CPS issues might relate. Your introduction of this matter of an
athiest CPS worker doesn't quite make the cut.

I do find it odd that I know so many religious child welfare workers
though.

In fact I've felt somewhat annoyed at a bit too much of the religious
mentality injected into casework. But then I'm more tolerant than you,
I guess.

Nevertheless, you are going off topic again, and apparently trying to
coyly make this about you....I'll just betcha.

I actually read the caseworkers report, which was
interesting because by the same logic, EVERY religious
family could be dragged into a Child Protection case.

But this is a spanking subject thread? Why would you bring up a
religious connection to CPS, open up sexual abuse issues by the story
of Lot and his daughters (which wasn't actually a sex abuse story at
all) and go wandering off....oh wait...Bong Water....I forgot.

I am not sure where exactly I ran across it, but
the caseworker logic is hard to forget.

Of course. Such things are certainly NOT an acceptable rationale for
child protection workers to be using to make a case. But then neither
would it be acceptable if a worker used a religion based bias to
prosecute a case.

I wonder if the worker's atheism was the ONLY bias issue involved?

If it was the ONLY issue involved then the case should have failed on
that alone. So tell us, oh one of weak memory, what WAS the entire
case about...or are you actually NOT privy to that information?

I might be able to come up with it next week.

Uh huh. Yep. That's it. Next week.

Dan: Please commit to a much stronger denial
than that. Show some real conviction in your belief.
If I find it I want to watch you "eat crow".

Denial of what?

You haven't posed a question or claim to be denied, or that has been,
as yet.

What ever are you babbling about now?

Gentle reader. A caveat:

Wandering around in the barren wasteland of his fevered bong water
addled mind The Whore comes up with yet another feeble attempt to
discredit others over HIS vicious treatment of a child and her mother.

It can cause him to write to these ngs as though there is some
rationale thread he is discussing. I suspect he's just assuming YOU
and I know what is going on in his head. A failing of the addled brain
no doubt.


Greg,
Get a job. Be a man. Grow up Greg. Or sit on your ass making a fool of
yourself. At least it keeps you from ****ing up yet another family.

Kane