The Canadian Argument ...

.... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
....demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

Doan

On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

.... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

Hahaha! Showing your stupidity again. Do you know the meaning of
"extremes"? As for lying, you might ask Dr. Embry again if he
actually said the study can only be gotten from him - Nathan knows! ;-)

Doan


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

Doan wrote:
Hahaha!

Weasel laughter. You didn't, as usual, actually respond to my
challenges and questions. So what's new, eh? Once a liar, always a
liar, and Doan is a liar.

Showing your stupidity again.

Showing yours.

Do you know the meaning of
"extremes"?

Yep.

And do you know how to actually answer a question or request? Show how
Chris' comments were an "extreme."

As for lying, you might ask Dr. Embry again if he
actually said the study can only be gotten from him - Nathan knows! ;-)

Knows what...that you can get one from Dr. Embry, or from a library not
open to the general public, or from AAA?

How does that change the Dr. Embry sent me copy when requested, and
AAA could not at that time? If he knew better, he would have told me
so.

You are lying again. Doan. As usual.

Care to answer the question I asked?

Of course not. You dishonest. A liar of monumental proportions over a
very long time.

Here's the question. Try again.

Don't answer with a question, thank you:

"
So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?
"

And;

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

And;


Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'


Nothing from you? Except weasel changes of subject?

Okay, don't expect another response in this thread until you respond in
this thread directly to what I asked.

0:-]




Doan


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hahaha!

Weasel laughter. You didn't, as usual, actually respond to my
challenges and questions. So what's new, eh? Once a liar, always a
liar, and Doan is a liar.

The proven liar is YOU! You were the one that created a corrupted PDF
file! How STUPID is that?

Showing your stupidity again.

Showing yours.

No! You are showing yours!

Do you know the meaning of
"extremes"?

Yep.

And anti-spanking zealotS are what, STUPID?

And do you know how to actually answer a question or request? Show how
Chris' comments were an "extreme."

Did I say Chris' comment were an "extreme"?

As for lying, you might ask Dr. Embry again if he
actually said the study can only be gotten from him - Nathan knows! ;-)

Knows what...that you can get one from Dr. Embry, or from a library not
open to the general public, or from AAA?

Hihihi! It can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself were your claim.
Did you forget?

How does that change the Dr. Embry sent me copy when requested, and
AAA could not at that time? If he knew better, he would have told me
so.

And what did you tell you?

You are lying again. Doan. As usual.

The proven liar is YOU!

Care to answer the question I asked?

Of course not. You dishonest. A liar of monumental proportions over a
very long time.

Hihihi! Who here believe Kane?

Here's the question. Try again.

Don't answer with a question, thank you:

Hihihi!

Doan

"
So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?
"

And;

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

And;


Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'


Nothing from you? Except weasel changes of subject?

Okay, don't expect another response in this thread until you respond in
this thread directly to what I asked.

0:-]




Doan


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

Doan wrote:

.....no he didn't

He ranted his childish nonsense, as usual.

0:-]


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hahaha!

Weasel laughter. You didn't, as usual, actually respond to my
challenges and questions. So what's new, eh? Once a liar, always a
liar, and Doan is a liar.

The proven liar is YOU! You were the one that created a corrupted PDF
file! How STUPID is that?

Showing your stupidity again.

Showing yours.

No! You are showing yours!

Do you know the meaning of
"extremes"?

Yep.

And anti-spanking zealotS are what, STUPID?

And do you know how to actually answer a question or request? Show how
Chris' comments were an "extreme."

Did I say Chris' comment were an "extreme"?

As for lying, you might ask Dr. Embry again if he
actually said the study can only be gotten from him - Nathan knows! ;-)

Knows what...that you can get one from Dr. Embry, or from a library not
open to the general public, or from AAA?

Hihihi! It can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself were your claim.
Did you forget?

How does that change the Dr. Embry sent me copy when requested, and
AAA could not at that time? If he knew better, he would have told me
so.

And what did you tell you?

You are lying again. Doan. As usual.

The proven liar is YOU!

Care to answer the question I asked?

Of course not. You dishonest. A liar of monumental proportions over a
very long time.

Hihihi! Who here believe Kane?

Here's the question. Try again.

Don't answer with a question, thank you:

Hihihi!

Doan

"
So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?
"

And;

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

And;


Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'


Nothing from you? Except weasel changes of subject?

Okay, don't expect another response in this thread until you respond in
this thread directly to what I asked.

0:-]




Doan


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

And Kane showed his STUPIDITY as usual. ;-)

Doan

On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:

....no he didn't

He ranted his childish nonsense, as usual.

0:-]


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
Hahaha!

Weasel laughter. You didn't, as usual, actually respond to my
challenges and questions. So what's new, eh? Once a liar, always a
liar, and Doan is a liar.

The proven liar is YOU! You were the one that created a corrupted PDF
file! How STUPID is that?

Showing your stupidity again.

Showing yours.

No! You are showing yours!

Do you know the meaning of
"extremes"?

Yep.

And anti-spanking zealotS are what, STUPID?

And do you know how to actually answer a question or request? Show how
Chris' comments were an "extreme."

Did I say Chris' comment were an "extreme"?

As for lying, you might ask Dr. Embry again if he
actually said the study can only be gotten from him - Nathan knows! ;-)

Knows what...that you can get one from Dr. Embry, or from a library not
open to the general public, or from AAA?

Hihihi! It can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself were your claim.
Did you forget?

How does that change the Dr. Embry sent me copy when requested, and
AAA could not at that time? If he knew better, he would have told me
so.

And what did you tell you?

You are lying again. Doan. As usual.

The proven liar is YOU!

Care to answer the question I asked?

Of course not. You dishonest. A liar of monumental proportions over a
very long time.

Hihihi! Who here believe Kane?

Here's the question. Try again.

Don't answer with a question, thank you:

Hihihi!

Doan

"
So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?
"

And;

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

And;


Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'


Nothing from you? Except weasel changes of subject?

Okay, don't expect another response in this thread until you respond in
this thread directly to what I asked.

0:-]




Doan


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

Doan posted yet again a Context Abortion Supported Lie:

You can't even quote yourself correctly for even partial context,
little liar.

And he was referring something that was not identified unless you look
at the previous paragraph.

"It is a bit like the Iraqi folks fighting over their sects. Not
functional."

You actually qouted him in an earlier post with:

"You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. "

I am quoting you quoting him.

In fuller context he said the following:

... We taught the parents to engage in a behavior change project and
keep data.?
We also coached the parents at home and in public settings to increase
positive attention, reduce negative attention, and use various
consequences
such as Time Out, put-throughs, over-correction, etc. (Time is not too
effective for under 3-year olds). These families became very skilled,
and
their results maintained 18-24 months, with no repeat fillings with
child
protective services.? ?High end families cannot learn to do these
skills
without home-based coaching.? Only two-parent, intact families, with
low-stress and normal kids could take general parenting skills and
apply
them at home without coaching.?

You are correct about the extremes. It is a bit like the Iraqi folks
fighting over their sects.? Not functional. ...

So Doan, what "extremes" would he be referring to...Nathan's claim of
"extremes" or Chris' actual web page comment and quote of Dr. Embry's
letter to the parent's mag?

So, let's see if we can find context.

He was responding to a claim by Nathan that he may or may not have
taken at face value with or without reading the actual comments refered
to by Nathan from Chris Dugan's page:

Here is Nathan's comment:

NB http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html ?which also
NB tries to use your letter to support a blanket denunciation of
NB spanking.

Show us, Doan, or Nathan, where a blanket denunciation of spanking is
included in Chris' page, here quoted below in full:

http://www.geocities.com/cddugan/SpkEmbry.html

Toddler Street Safety Without Spanking
By Chris Dugan

Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development.

In the Summer 1987 issue of _Children_ magazine, Dr. Dennis Embry
writes:

"Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed
to counteract pedestrian accidents to
preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is
about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United
States.)

"Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking,
scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries
by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way
to gain parents' attention.

"Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called
Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

"1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. "Safe players play on
the grass or sidewalk."
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than
playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas"


Principle #1 may be particularly important in light of the fact that
some young toddlers may not be able to comprehend negations yet.
Hence, when the parent says, "Don't eat out of the catfood dish!"
"Don't jump on furniture!" "Don't go into the street!" the toddler
hears, "Eat out of the catfood dish! Jump on the furniture! Go into the
street!"

Principle #3 can easily be integrated into a parental habit of
"catching them being Good." Too often, parents only notice when their
child is behaving unacceptably. Children are trying to learn how to be
a person and a member of their native culture. Letting them know when
they are succeeding can help them immeasurably on their developmental
journey. ...

Neither of the above comments even suggest any kind of "blanket" claim
against spanking. Just responding to the content of Dr. Embry's letter.


As you can see, Dr. Embry himself says:

"
"These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing
safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a
day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment
the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children
stopped going into the street."

If Chris Dugan was trying " to use your [Embry's] letter to support a
blanket denunciation of spanking," I fail to see it on this page I've
quoted above. Hence Nathan misled Dr. Embry, unless he read that page
and agreed with Nathan.

Chris was agreeing with the findings of Dr. Embry.

The nearest one can come to anything that resembles a "denunciation,"
would be his:

"Spanking toddlers for exploratory behavior is harmful and unfair.
They need to explore their environment as a necessary part of their
cognitive development. "

Do you think that Dr. Embry would disagree with this statement had he
read it, as Nathan should have quoted it? Do you think that Dr. Embry
would declare Chris' statements, as 'extreme?'

Attempts to mislead, Doan, are the same as lying.

I can cut Nathan some 'enthusiasm' slack, though he certainly pushed
the envelope, but your quote of Embry with all contextual relationships
removed passes the boundary of truth into a blatant and deliberate lie.


This is your usual tactic.

Doan

Happy New Year.

Kane


On 2 Jan 2007, 0:- wrote:

... continues. An opinion and update.

http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=176

Tuesday, 2 Jan 2007
Sorry kid, but this spanking is good for you!

by John Borst

There has been a flurry of articles on the issue of the spanking of
children during the fall of 2006. (See here, here and here) The first
is about a study on the topic by a Senate committee, the second is
about a report by the United Nations, and the third is about a man
being charged with assault for spanking the child of his common-law
wife.

Then on December 30, 2006, the National Post editorial page had a
subscribers only article titled "Spanking kids is not a form of
cruelty" in response to the U.N.'s report. Its author, Tal Bachman
is described as a singer-songwriter, however, he self identifies
himself in the article as a "father of eight" who believes that
"issues of corporal punishment" of children are far less important
than "Canada's unconscionably lax punishment of child molesters,
our virtually non-existent abortion laws or our shockingly low age of
sexual consent." Somehow he goes on to work in the issue of how
"hundreds of perfectly viable fetuses are scalded to death each
week" and how in B.C. "thousands of young girls are left vulnerable
to predatory polygamists males" but what these admittedly important
issues have to do with spanking is not explained. Bachman not only
reveals his "social conservativism" but his religious beliefs as
well.

That the religious right should belittle secular society's attempts
to lessen or eliminate "corporal punishment" of children seems
contradictory to a fully formed "life" ethic. The Church teaches
that a person exists "from the moment of conception" to "natural
death" and must be accorded the rights, dignity and respect that all
persons of any age are accorded within that time frame.

One such right and sign of dignity and respect is the right, reinforced
by Canada's own human rights laws, to be safe in their person and
free from harm. If I were to slap a child, in Bachman's code, "the
odd time when a quiet chat fails and a strong warning - via spanking
- may be the best and safest option" as I certainly felt like doing
one time in a Tim Horton's when a young child brazenly abused her
mother and the mother appeared totally bewildered and reacted in all
the wrong ways. The child needed discipline but even had the parent
turned the child over her lap in public and spanked her, she would have
risked a charge of assault and the loss of her off-spring to a
Children's Aid Society. And if that is the case, why is it okay to
"spank" a child behind the closed door of one's home and not in
the public confines of a restaurant? Certainly, striking another adult
in the confines of one's home or place of work is just as much a
criminal offence as it is in public, (both were once legal) but when
doing the same to a child is acceptable, it smacks of a double
standard. Whether a man slaps his wife or child the same issues of
power, authority, domination and possession are at play. Yet as a
society we tolerate striking a defenseless child of any age and not the
adult.

Schools and the abolition of "corporal punishment" are an example
to society that it is possible to completely eliminate "spanking",
in any form, from our grab bag of disciplinary measures. Our schools
have not fallen apart nor become unruly because of it.

Although Canada's Supreme Court did not ban corporal punishment in
2004, from the lexicon of disciplinary techniques available to a
parent, it did draw a line between a brief "swat" in a dangerous
situation and the concept of cruelty/abuse. A teacher can still step in
and forcefully break up a fight between two students or physically
restrain a child from harming another (although even then, a teacher
risks a parental complaint and the ignominy of a Children's Aid
investigation.) Had Bachman and the National Post editors demonstrated
the limits to spanking as a disciplinary method and importance of the
concept of cruelty instead of implying as its headline does, that all
spanking is not cruel then it would have done a service to society and
to the principle of a "life" of dignity and respect for children.

Instead both the author and paper chose to perpetuate the myth that
children are nothing but property, lack the full rights accorded to an
adult citizen of Canada or the same dignity accorded to an adult member
of the Body of Christ regardless of his particular religious
affiliation.

I have lived the experience of seeing a Grade 8 student strapped so
hard by a school principal his wrists were twice cut and bleeding. In
another example a young teen was "spanked" by his father with a
rubber hose (because he punched his sister on the arm) such that he was
bruised from his buttocks to the middle of his back. Or in another case
two Portuguese girls were given a betting by their brother at their
father's command because they chose to wear the school's gym
bloomers uniform during the Catholic school's physical education
class. Today such incidents would have to be reported to the
authorities; at the time of each offence, no such law existed.

Bachman's belittling of government "pompous know-it-alls
...demanding their personal parenting philosophies be accepted as
universal law" is just the kind of attitude that the principal and
parents in the above examples would have used to justify their actions
in the fifties and sixties.

Bachman wants us to believe it is not the "tip of a slippery slope"
to countenance 'spanking". But by using such examples of justified
spanking as a "last ditch effort" to prevent junior from "running
blindly into the street" he is being disingenuous and is providing a
lousy excuse not to look for a more "positive" form of discipline
which is something society has forced teachers to do with its banning
of capital punishment.

It is time parents like Bachman were challenged to do the same. It is
also time for all churches, especially the Catholic Church, which
prides itself on its "life" ethic, to promote and campaign for the
elimination of corporal punishment of children.

Strange way to have an argument...

On 3 Jan 2007, Ravnurin332700 wrote:

Strange way to have an argument...

That is the logic of the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

Doan