The fine line that doesn't exist

------------------------------------
Once again LaVonne, you are wrong. There is no fine line. Your imaginary
example of the child who was spanked so badly that she has permanent
physical damage would not be discipline, it would be abuse. When I take my
daughter over my lap and swat her bare bottom 20 times with my hand because
she didn't pick up her toys like she was told to do, that is discipline.
Her bottom is red for a few minutes but half an hour later there is no sign
of the fact that the punishment took place. Punishment, not abuse. The
child that supposedly is learning to talk again (which, for the record, I
don't believe that happened either) after being fed hot sauce would be
abuse, not punishment. No fine line, no connection.
------------------------------------

Children learn by immitating adults.

All you have taught your daughter is that if someone doesn't do what she wants, she should hit them. Nice one.

On 3 Jun 2005, OddOneOut wrote:

Children learn by immitating adults.

All you have taught your daughter is that if someone doesn't do what she wants, she should hit them. Nice one.


You forgot the context! Using that logic, you could say that giving
medicine to your kids is teaching them that doing drugs is ok!!!

Interestingly in Gunnoe & Mariner (1997), they found that "for most
children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seems unfounded."

Gunnoe's study suggests that spankings can be either beneficial or
detrimental depending on a child's age, family structure, cultural context
and how the child experiences them.

If the child believes a parent is acting aggressively, he is more likely
to adopt aggressive ways of dealing with conflict. By contrast, when
perceived as fair, spankings prompt many children to inhibit aggression.

Source:
(Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescenct Medicine 1997;151:768-775)

Pop wrote:
You lack abut everything - what a waste

?

I have a great butt. Even at my advanced age, because of the vigorous
physical regimen I've practiced all my life, my butt is as tight as
when I was 19. Or so my wife tells me, with a little leer.

Why are you interested in my butt? It's not the least wasted. Fine
shape, I assure you.

Any particular reason you are interested? 0:-

Or is it that your postings are so much babbling and harassment, with a
refusal to debate?


wrote in message
ps.com...

Doan wrote:
On 3 Jun 2005, OddOneOut wrote:

Children learn by immitating adults.

All you have taught your daughter is that if someone doesn't do what she wants, she should hit them. Nice one.


You forgot the context! Using that logic, you could say that giving
medicine to your kids is teaching them that doing drugs is ok!!!

R R R R ...and of course we have no problem with drugs in this country,
and no experts have claimed that our tendency to pop pills to kids IS
likely a factor in the youthful indulgence in drugs.

You have exposed yourself yet again, for lack of logic and babbling
mindless simplicity, little Monkeyboy.

Cute, real cute.

0:-




Interestingly in Gunnoe & Mariner (1997), they found that "for most
children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seems unfounded."

Gunnoe's study suggests that spankings can be either beneficial or
detrimental depending on a child's age, family structure, cultural context
and how the child experiences them.

If the child believes a parent is acting aggressively, he is more likely
to adopt aggressive ways of dealing with conflict. By contrast, when
perceived as fair, spankings prompt many children to inhibit aggression.

Source:
(Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescenct Medicine 1997;151:768-775)

What line, Fern?
The legal line or the one you tout that is NOT in the law?

I am guilty of a suspicion, an innuendo, an "at risk of"...

I have never, ever been criminally charged for
any form of child abuse.

I have been accused by people who had to
flat out LIE in order to make a "dependency" case.

Just to clarify for you, the ""expert"", CPS agencies
operate much like you do, without regard for the actual
legal definition of child abuse. They remove children
for what THEY consider to be child abuse, even though
less than 5% of those removals would remotely qualify
as criminal child abuse!

If you ever wish to complain about the blurry definition
of what IS and is NOT child abuse, you have the
unqualified, incompetent caseworkers to thank for
that blurry condition. Don't be too hard on them though,
because a tiny percentage of CPS caseworkers have
ever even SEEN their states complete caseworker
policy manual.

LaVonne, your question was really a sort of non sequitur
since I know for a fact that you ALSO view ALL spanking
as abuse. In essence, you don't HAVE A LINE TO CROSS!

Hence I assumed you were referring to the various
lines as defined by law and blurred by caseworkers!

Your other question is also a non sequitur:
"Where are your children?"

What children are you talking about?

LaVonne's post follows:

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents
From: Carlson LaVonne Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:52:25
Subject: The fine line that doesn't exist

Where are your children? Did you cross the line into abuse?

OddOneOut:
That was a nice try for the ultraliberal left, if
taken to it's ultimate development it would
lead to elimination of all forms of punishment, like prisons.

Applied selectively, it merely fills prisons.

But hey! That's good for the labor unions, right?
And massive juvenile crime is good for another
union industry!

Did you ever read "Lord of The Flies" ?
It's a good example of what lack of discipline does!

Did you catch Doan's reference where research
proved that quaint simplistic reasoning wrong?

(Despite the liberal bias inherent in virtually ALL research!)
(What? You thought university research had a RIGHT WING bias??)

Jirimi:
You are arguing about whether the sky is falling with
people PAID to advocate the chicken little position!

Sure! There ARE some abuses out there, but what
LaVonne will do is pretend those are common!
They are RARE!

But the tactic of the chicken little's is to EXAGGERATE
and pretend that every one of the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS
of cases that CPS agencies dig into involve the HORRORS
that LaVonne and Kane will present!

Follow the money for the agencies..
Look at the Federal statistics, reported to them by the state
agencies THEMSELVES.
Despite the obvious bias where the agencies shine up
their numbers for the MONEY, the numbers STILL reveal
major MAJOR problems with how the agencies operate!

Kane and LaVonne don't want to fess up about the fact that
the stuff that what NORMAL PEOPLE consider to be
child abuse is something like 2 or 3 % of all cases!

And OF THOSE, a smaller portion become CRIMINAL cases.

But notice how LaVonne keeps repeating the HORROR stories?

That form of domestic terrorism is PROFITABLE for the
agencies and their contractors!

It's called Demagoguery!
They attempt to represent a HUGE INDUSTRY as being all
about those HORROR STORIES. It is a LIE!

They seek SENSATONALISM to justify their SOCIALISM!

They hope for KNEE JERK reactions to support them.
(Here comes ""OddOneOut""!)

Jirimi, you really are wasting your effort if you think you
can reason Kane or LaVonne around to anything one
iota closer to your position. They are ideologues.

You expected reasoning and true rationality?
Welcome to the internet.

Greegor wrote:
What line, Fern?

R R R...now why would I guess a sensitive spot has been touched, eh?

You are talking to a missing person? Been dreamin' about getting him
back here, have yah? Not likely.

The legal line or the one you tout that is NOT in the law?

There is not 'legal' line anywhere in statute, greegor. Not defined
BEFORE the fact. All references to the boundary between legal CP and
abuse are vague to the point of the ridiculous, and only those
conditions that exist after one has crossed over into abuse are
mentioned.

YOu see, greegor, that's indicative of the problem. That determining
that line before you hit is impossible. No one knowns. No the law, and
certainly not you.

I am guilty of a suspicion, an innuendo, an "at risk of"...

If there's some state of mind or being to be guilty of, greegor, it's
highly probably you are.

I have never, ever been criminally charged for
any form of child abuse.

Yeah, just had Lisa's daughter removed because of a civil court...which
is of course, legally constitutioned in this country.

Girl's not back, is she?

I have been accused by people who had to
flat out LIE in order to make a "dependency" case.

Naw, you have told us enough here to make it. Lisa chosing to live with
a convicted violator of Iowa domestic abuse law and REFUSING to
participate in some evaluation and programs related to your past are
more than enough to remove the child for being at risk.

Just to clarify for you, the ""expert"", CPS agencies
operate much like you do, without regard for the actual
legal definition of child abuse.

No, I'm sure "Fern" is very aware of the law and the definitions.

They remove children
for what THEY consider to be child abuse,

No, they remove children for what the law and police SAYS is child
abuse, greegor.

even though
less than 5% of those removals would remotely qualify
as criminal child abuse!

Oh, and your source for the vague but outrageous claim would be what?

And does it have to reach the point of injury to remove a child? Would
you, for instance, given that the perv hasn't ****ed the child yet,
insist that until he does, the child rightfully should be left in the
home?

Well, YOU are a domestic abuse perp, greegor. Should they just leave
the child with you until you do abuse her? At least they offered YOU
the chance to redeem yourself, and prove you were committed to cleaning
up your act.

What did you do? You proudly and arrogantly appropriated rights NOT
YOURS. The child's and Lisa's.

Refusing to cooperate effectively ruined their family life, greego. You
proud of yourself?

If you ever wish to complain about the blurry definition
of what IS and is NOT child abuse, you have the
unqualified, incompetent caseworkers to thank for
that blurry condition.

Well, since in this case the complaining is yours, and YOU can't show
were there IS any such line before the fact...when it's too late,
probably much as you committed domestic abuse in Iowa, I'd say YOU are
the unqualified, incompetent caseworkers.

They have created no blurry condition. The "blur" is caused by the
instence that children are property, and can be hit assaultively and it
will be called something else. If I just tapped your cheek lightly,
without your permission I could be charged, if you'd sign a complaint,
with criminal assault.

How is it we cannot afford this same protection to children? Are they
less than you?

No, don't answer. We already know your opinion of children.

Don't be too hard on them though,
because a tiny percentage of CPS caseworkers have
ever even SEEN their states complete caseworker
policy manual.

Abosolute nonsense. Every office of CPS I've visited in many western
states has a complete set in the workers reference room, and every
supervisor a set next to the desk. You are a liar.

They have Seen them and are required to read them during training, and
to use them as active references when questions of casework practice
come up. I have heard supervisors in conference and consultation with
relatives stop and send the worker to get various volumes and sat and
read the pertinent sections to the relatives to explain practices.

YOU, sir are a liar. The reason YOU don't know whats in policy is that
you immediately MADE and enemy of yourself, instead of an advocate for
the child.

Go and ask to see Iowa's policy or statute on child abuse. I seem to
recall having looked up some ONLINE.

LaVonne, your question was really a sort of non sequitur
since I know for a fact that you ALSO view ALL spanking
as abuse. In essence, you don't HAVE A LINE TO CROSS!

The essence of this issue is that yes, if I hit and adult I am guilty
of assualt. Why would it be different when I hit a kid?

And trust me, I could NEVER get away, in a court of law, and an
arresting officer would laugh their ass off at me if I said, "I was
just giving her loving discipline, a parental spanking" after
"spanking" an adult non consensually.

Try it. Or is that what happened with your domestic abuse conviction?

Hence I assumed you were referring to the various
lines as defined by law and blurred by caseworkers!

Both do NOT refer to any line, before the fact...only after the act has
proven injurious. And you know that for a fact, greegor, but you'll lie
about it.

Your other question is also a non sequitur:
"Where are your children?"

"An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or
evidence".

And the obvious answer in your case, though the child isn't yours, but
the one that would be relevant, "Lisa's child is still in the physical
custody of the man that battered my face in for the things I did to the
child, and has been their over three years now."

You might add, if you were honest, that you have been suckling at Lisa
all that time, displacing her daughter's right to be with and provide
support from her mother. And add that you are so sick you can't see
what a sick childlike dependent fool you are.

What children are you talking about?

The only one that she could be....either those you don't have so you
don't have an opinion that's based on experience, or the only one that
you do have experience with whose family you destroyed for her and her
mother.

Next question?

So, you get to ask LaVonne questions, but YOU don't answer her's.

YOu hedge by tacking "criminal" onto abuse, so you could lyingly claim
that you had not hand in the loss of this child to her mother.

What would it take for you to grow up?

You lie like a five year old caught with crumbs on his chin, dribbling
down his shirt front with a broken cookie jar and cookies all over the
kitchen floor.

And HE has an excuse. He is developmentally as yet unaware fully of his
behaviors meaingins and what a lie is.

At six he'll know, but YOU, you aren't there yet.

Do you support the use of lethal force by parents to take their
children from state custody?

Normal people can look at that, and no matter their bias, they can
answer it. Or confess why they can't. The rest of you sickos still
stuck in childhood developmentally crabwalk, weasel dance, and dodge.
Just like you just did when asked if you had crossed over into "abuse,"
not criminal abuse.

Sucky little baby greegor.

Tell Lisa we said she should wean you. Go ahead, try it.

You are chicken **** to do it because you KNOW you are exactly that and
she might get wise to you and boot your dependent sorry butt out on the
street. Where you BELONG.

Go check into the Y. Quick.

0:-




LaVonne's post follows:

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents
From: Carlson LaVonne Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:52:25
Subject: The fine line that doesn't exist

Where are your children? Did you cross the line into abuse?

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
What line, Fern?
The legal line or the one you tout that is NOT in the
law?

I am guilty of a suspicion, an innuendo, an "at risk
of"...

I have never, ever been criminally charged for
any form of child abuse.
=== Sooo, uhh, how WERE you charged, then?

I have been accused by people who had to
flat out LIE in order to make a "dependency" case.
=== i doubt the lied; perception is reality to anyone
and I'm sure you created the perception you're calling
a lie, and probably on purpose.

Just to clarify for you, the ""expert"", CPS agencies
operate much like you do, without regard for the
actual
legal definition of child abuse. They remove
children
for what THEY consider to be child abuse, even though
less than 5% of those removals would remotely qualify
as criminal child abuse!
=== Ohh, stop flattering yourself; you know you're
actually describing how YOU operate there!

If you ever wish to complain about the blurry
definition
of what IS and is NOT child abuse, you have the
unqualified, incompetent caseworkers to thank for
that blurry condition. Don't be too hard on them
though,
because a tiny percentage of CPS caseworkers have
ever even SEEN their states complete caseworker
policy manual.
=== Wow, should I believe the spew of a lying, hate
mongering pscho? I think NOT! Learn from history,
they say.

LaVonne, your question was really a sort of non
sequitur
since I know for a fact that you ALSO view ALL
spanking
as abuse. In essence, you don't HAVE A LINE TO
CROSS!
=== You don't know what you're talking about anymore.

Hence I assumed you were referring to the various
lines as defined by law and blurred by caseworkers!
=== Yeah, ass-u-me

Your other question is also a non sequitur:
"Where are your children?"
=== Do you even know what non sequitur is? Your usage
is pretty clumsy - who'd you hear use that word?

What children are you talking about?
=== Who cares? It's nothing to do with support.

LaVonne's post follows:
=== Ooooohhh, he's mastered the copy/paste operation
again. Neat stuff there greg

Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.foster-parents
From: Carlson LaVonne Thu, 02 Jun
2005 22:52:25
Subject: The fine line that doesn't exist

Where are your children? Did you cross the line into
abuse?

=== Well, did you? You tossed out a lot of feces here
but never did give a direct answer to the question you
were asked. Bu then that's now what you're here for is
it?

wrote in message
oups.com...


Greegor wrote:
....
Where are your children? Did you cross the line
into abuse?