And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work...

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:01:55 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 4 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:38:43 -0800, Doan wrote:

And others may disagree with you! ;-)

But then what happens to that "standard" in "reasonable standard,"
eh?

Reasonable doesn't mean no disagreement! Are you so stupid??? ;-)

Thank you for the help with my growing stupidity.

Reasonable means:
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.

Yes, that sounds correct, but I don't recall disagreeing one what
reasonable is. Please point out my stupidity in doing so.

2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking:
a
reasonable solution to the problem.

Same......

3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a
reasonable
hour.

Same.....

4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

Same......


Aaaaah....Does this mean then that the exact point on the spanking to
abuse continuimn is very very broad, since all the "reasonable" folks
on the planet would likely have a very broad range between the upper
and lowermost?

If so, could we establish, for the sake of the poor parents chaffing
in anticipation for your answer, and mine of course, and for the sake
of all those logic impaired ASZ's to finally get the skinny on this
old quandry, what the bottom most point is on the broad boundry...so
that NO one will inadvertently cross it and injure their child and
wind up with allegations of abuse?

I'm afraid just defining what a reasonable person is didn't work. My
apologies for sending you on a wild goose chase. It must have been my
failure to define the elements of the question adequately.

But, I have to admit, being the stupid person that I am, I was unable
to refine my question further. Do you mind continuing though I have
failed?

Thanks in advance.

Apparently you wish to refute yourself rather than refute me.

Apparently, you're too stupid to understand.

To understand what?

That even reasonable people can't agree on a sufficiently clear and
definable boundary narrow enough for use out side your world of
"science" {:-]} for the practical applications we have all sought
in aps for so very many years?

I guess I'm rightly identified as stupid then. Smart folks like you
are trying so hard to educate me.

Would you mind working your way through all the explanations now and
get to the practical applicable answer, the definative one, for our
use?

Some kind of border where spankers, (remember we ASZs only have a
logic problem, and a defining problem...we don't have the following
problem) can be assured they will not cross over into abuse.

If one is to have a "standard," one is stretching credulity just a
tad
to claim that "others" might not agree with it, don't you think?

No!

When one says standard I would hope they were referring to something
that could be used for other than weasel debating. Something that can
be applied with some hope that it will serve a purpose.

I think your definition leaves a lot to be desired, especially since
all you did was cut and paste definitions of "reasonable" which I
think, stupid me, isn't going to answer the original question. You
KNOW what that is of course.

And your reply of "reasonable standards" by a "reasonable person" just
doesn't cut it.

I admit, and I think my fellow ASZs will have to agree, we are very
very very stupid when it comes to figuring what is and isn't a
spanking when it is NOT at the furtherist extreme of either end of the
spectrum.

And I know, being the honest caring considerate soul you so often
prove you are, that you don't want have any of us take up spanking
wihtout the sage advice you offer, to spank only in a "reasonable"
manner.

I admit I would be totally at sea if I had a child over my lap and
whatever instrument to strike her with if I had to use your "standard"
to decide how hard, and when to stop.

Now please lend us your wonderful scientific mind and help us out.
Children's safety could depend on you.

I mean, it immediately becomes NOT a standard because two or more
folks that have a similar characteristic of "reasonable" "may
disagree
with you."

Right?

Nope!

Well, okay if you say so.

Would you mind then, since MY problem, my stupidity, remains. I cannot
find in your answer a way for spankers to decide were to stop...I know
THYE think they are being "reasonable" so often when they have flaid
hide off their children and broken bones.

Apparently, they too....though I'd hesitate to call them stupid or
logic impaired as we ASZs seem to be.....lack the necessary standards
of reasonableness you are holding out so tantilizingly to us.

Gosh, this feels just like the first day in Algebra...I'm soooo
confused.

Help us Doan. Help us.

I mean, after all, your answer could even resolve the age old question
of what is and isn't pornography.

I have a hunch you are just saying, as you have so many times in the
past, 'let the parent decide, no matter what.'

But no, you wouldn't, would you? R R R R R

Do you grease your butt before you stick your head up there, and what
will we do when you disappear....we can't do without Doan?

Doan


Kane




Doan


I'm sure you can find scientific support for your two somewhat
paradoxical stances on this issue.

I love being educated. Educate me.

Kane



I consider myself a reasonable person.

As a reasonable person, I think that more or less any form of
violence
against children and child beating, is not reasonable and is
child
abuse, at the very least when it is applied to toddlers.

i

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:19:18 -0800, Doan wrote:
So Doan, you think that spanking is not a form of beating. I
think
that you have been asked a valid question:

Just what is the difference between spanking and beating?

It is based on the "reasonable person" standard.

Just where does the boundary lie?


It is where a "reasonable" person said it is. The is the
same
question
in the 80's with regard to pornography. Where do draw the
line?