| | Kids should work...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:11:06 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...


On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

We ARE discussing "beating" of children.

Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking"
and
if
you can't determing the difference between spanking and beating,
according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking
Zealot,
ASZ.

True! Just ask the social science researchers if they their
studies
was
on spanking or "beating"

I don't need to ask.

I know! You alredy "greased your butt"! ;-)

As I said below and you childishly attempted to divert from......

They were of neither.

Why?

I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I
don't need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that
explained.

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by
the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither". What
logic!

Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" was
exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.

I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I
admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult for
you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is
obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the
"reasonable person."

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive
terms.

LOL! They are not stupid!

All of "they" or some of "they?" That thing with plurals is certainly
a challenge for you.

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines"
parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear,
humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile
hall with the children of families that don't use pain parenting?

Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to
rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming more
and more directed away from punishment models?

And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted to
you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply
denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on
your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as
it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite
aware
of the limits of social science studies.

You are wising up! Good!

No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I'm not doing
well, but I have a great deal of persistence.

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical
defenses and arguments.

I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of
invectives,
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)

The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone
that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.

Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom
and putdowns you use?

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than
in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer
to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend
there
is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to
decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what
"reasonable"
doublt is?

Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for
others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them.

What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?

That's why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor charges
being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct.

My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that
backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and
admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under consideration....

.....is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by
choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand,
with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about spanking."

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice.

Absolutely!

And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on where
I'm going.

The difference between us is that you lack the morals and
conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)

For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or abuse
except by their EFFECTS.

If you have found otherwise I'd be most pleased to be advised. I have
done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The Question in
any statute or policy I've uncovered.

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes,
that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between "reasonable
force" and "excessive force".

And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot refuse
to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force" and
be hired and retained as a LEO.

I understand they also face some of the same consequential incentives
that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect, prisoner,
or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child would
likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities,
from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and
demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and
imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.

Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own
mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?

I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers, but
they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most of
the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly
legal and have been for some time in all but one state.

And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly
protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm and
no in parental disciplining.

So tell us, Doan...if everyone else in the world you keep bringing up
cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their child,
and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to "do
not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that answer
The Question?

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they would
wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Who are they?

Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on The
Question.

And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?

Parents?

The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof
though.

I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and it
is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff, and
legislatures spend considerable time on the problem....that parents
can simply ignore...as they so often do with your encouragement by
distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and the
posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting.

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well as
DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and
spanking.

Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?

I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for you
as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The
Question.

If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access.

Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse
after injuring their child, but I don't think anyone here would, even
your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so.

It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental
processing...to excuse bad behavior.
In other words, the spanked (90+%) of the population, has learned to
lie very well to protect themselves from the consequences of their
actions.

You are a prime example.

And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do you
see
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at Sweden
before and after 1979?

If you wish to go down that road please do, but know at the end of the
long evasive trail, I will be waiting here with The Question.

It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails on
the
incidence of abuse.

Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning
spanking?

I cannot say, and neither can you, but I can tell you that immediately
there was huge increase in the reporting of child abuse....and
services rendered to child and family. The purpose was not to reduce
the reporting of child abuse, but the incidence of it in the future.

And what are we seeing?

Dr. Durant explains it well:
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm

"Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse
The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily based
on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case that
reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since the
1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the
issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to
rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied to
shifts in public awareness. "


Then for a lesson in "doublethink" about as good as I've run across in
my lifetime, even better than your own, try reading this:

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html

A complete denial of the fact that reporting something isn't the doing
of that thing. And later, the passive voice reporting that death rates
for children, always low in Sweden, have not changed..in other words
the claim that not spanking was going to be bad for Sweden didn't
materialize.

All they got was more attention to the already severe problem with
UNREPORTED child abuse. Talk with older swedes about parenting methods
of the past. They were an equal too if not the surpassers of the
Germans.

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the
bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT???

That was MY point, Doan. Regressive fallacy number 4.032. Don't you
ever improve your ploy repertoire. You are so easy to spot.

My point was that parents lie about their "spanking" and call it that
when it is in fact abusive and damaging to the child. Do you think
that at any point in time from the birth of their child to the moment
they were nailed by CPS they told anyone the truth about their
"spanking" practices?

And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?

I don't recall saying that, but I suspect the incidence of child
abuse, were the use of CP outlawed, would result over time as people
learned other methods of parenting....OR LOST THEIR children to those
that do use non pain parenting, YES, the that kind of abuse would
reduce.

Using the absolute, "stop" of course, is your silly attempt to one
action fiddle the language.

I don't think you can support your implication that I WANT to ban
spanking. I consider it a second best solution to the voluntary
reduction by parents who will stop listening to their fear filled
childhood denial, and to you and your encouragement to spank.

On the other hand I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, and the
fastest progress, just as we saw with women's suffrage and the civil
right movement, may well lie with a change in the law. It seems to be
the case in the countries that have outlawed CP.

I am saddened, but not ashamed that I could be wrong. I wish it were
otherwise, and loving parents didn't themselves have to be threatened
to awareness...but if that's what it takes I'll be able to take a
break and end my reasoned appeals to conscience.

Conscience, and its development, often being the first casualty of
pain parenting.

This is one of the self admitted "stupid" things I do. I trust parents
to a far greater degree than they warrant by the evidence of their
behavior.

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or
the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her on
the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop crying
so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've
heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry, I
don't
see the logic, Kane.

No, I was not discussing that. Are you using regression or aggression
logical fallacies today? I am explaining why I know that parents, in
answer to YOUR diverting question, do NOT know how to limit themselves
in many instances.

You may be too short, in morals, metaphorically speaking, to see over
the thickets along your diverted argument, but I am not. We are still
talking about The Question.

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million reports
of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate
half
are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child
physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.

Why would you make such a demand?

Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about The
Question.

As to your request for citation:

I have contacted abcnews and advised them that you have uncovered
malfeasance in their "fact checker" staff. Apparently your prompt
attention to this matter and your extensive research has shown how off
the mark they are in quoting federal stats that must surely be wrong.
They have our email addy and no doubt will contact you for your
expertise. There may be some money in it, who knows.

And I confess to my error...I had forgotten that the data from 5 years
ago has changed considerably of this time. There the number of abuse
reports you'll find below:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...use010402.html
"Children's advocates also suspect that the federal statistics
released today miss many instances of abuse. The federal estimate is
based on nearly 3 million reports that were referred to local child
welfare authorities, just over 60 percent of which were investigated,
yielding the 826,000 confirmed cases "
And notice the number of confirmed cases. And about half of all cases
are neglect, leaving the remainder abuse.
Are you calling all the posters that have posted that here for
years
liars? Or are you just unable to read? Our own Plant-life
cross-posts
such things and has for years.

Yup! Just as you did now. They, mostly, yapped with no supporting
evidence!

Yeah, right.

A google on ["child abuse" reports+million] would turn up hundreds
of
such postings. If you actually believed it to be untrue you'd have
happily cranked up the actual number yourself and posted it to
refute
me.

Google is not the authorative source, Kane. That is the problem with
the Internet. You have to be very careful about the information you
see on the Internet.

Have you advised The Plant, and gotten in touch with the DOJ, the FBI,
and other government sources to let them know they lack credibility by
posting to the Internet?

I've already net abcnews know of your concern.

Instead you make demands.

I have no right to demand you to back up your claim, Kane?

Not if the burden of proof is yours and you just skinned out of it on
one issue to another that doesn't really matter to the discussion.

You ask me to prove things that are NOT on the topic we were
discussing. You will grab any response I make to your failure to
respond to The Question, this one or others in the past, and run with
that to avoid responding

It's your MO and you should know by now how laughable it as it see you
disappear up your own asshole every time you do it. Many let you get
away with it. Even I have for the sake of my intent. And I will in the
future, but don't be alarmed at the occasional surprise waiting for
you along your own trail of deceit.

This wasn't a reasonable request by a reasonable man, it was a
school
yard ploy by a child that knows he can't defend his naughty
behavior.

You are acting like a child, Kane. You are pulling a "tantrum" so
that
you can avoid answering my question. STOP IT!

That ploy has dried up, Doan. No one is diverted by it. All this is an
attempt to avoid the inevitable. That you are a proven liar. That you
are morally bankrupt and deceitful in your claims and stated
neutrality on parents making up their own mind. And you entertain
yourself with you pseudo scientific demands for proof of everything.
And, you might notice, I did answer your question, and it canned your
silly ass, as I do just about every time you stick it out there for
everyone to see.
And what percentage is that of the child
population? 1%, 0.5%, or 0.25%? You tell me, Kane.

I might if you told me the point of your asking?

To see the big-picture!

Sorry. On some matters you will have to be your own teacher. I am paid
as part of my work to do some research. I'm not doing it for you for
free.

And there is no use in the stat in consideration of our debate over
The Question, you have not answered as yet.

When you can show a relevance to The Question and answering it...and
that is all, I might consider assisting you. I don't have to support
my asking The Question. You have to answer or live with the obvious
outcome of your failure to do so.

All of your diversions are NOT going to help you in this one Doan. Not
one, not any, not even with a Whore's help, and the anxious Twittering
of A Plant.

Clarify.

Already did!

No, asking a question over again isn't "clarifying." What do you wish
the information for in the light of coming to an answer to the
question? If you need data to answer the question, then that is YOUR
problem. I only ask it. I don't answer it.
I fail to see the connection to the percentage of children from the
population and my claim that millions of child abuse reports are
taken
each year by police and CPS.

Then you are really stupid as you admitted. ;-) You claimed that
about
half of them are for spanking.

Please show were I said that. I said, "abuse" which is pretty common
knowledge. Roughly half the reports that are substantiated are for
neglect the remainder for abuse.

You showed me no data to support such
a claim!

Because it is not really relevant to The Question. I do not have to
defend the asking of a question. You have to make up your own mind
whether or not to answer it and how, and live with the result of YOUR
decision.
Now you are weasling by changing that claim to "millions of
child abuse reports". Are you always this dishonest, Kane?

Me and abcnews and the federal authorities.

I believe the US DHHS keeps such data. You are welcome to go there and
look, for you see YOU are or should be asking for information so you
CAN answer the question, and instead you asking ME to provide you the
data to either answer the question, or as I suspect R R R, to divert
from answering The Question.

Do you wish to use the data (which I have willingly given to you upon
asking...as you can see) to answer the question, or to claim that The
Question isn't a relevant question at all?

And finally, what has this particular data got to do with either?

If I was only ONE parent asking in behalf on ONE child who might or
might not get spanked it would be relevant in this newsgroup, where
the experts on spanking, defending spanking, supporting others right
to spank or not, to ask such a question.

Where else could I possibly go that I haven't already gone to ask it?
I've asked policy, statute, mental health professionals, and parents
who spank, and so far, not a one has had a definitive answer that I
feel safe using to spank my child. Hence, I cannot decide.

I have had to wait low these many years while my children grew up.
What a lose for them and me.
And finally, before you tell me why, please pose an argument. You
may
mark from this day forward I don't respond to demands, even if
seemingly reasonable, if you conceal your premise and or argument.

LOL! Now you are making demands of me when I can't make demands of
yout!
"Please" is a demand? A statement that I don't respond further, unless
I wish of course, to YOUR demands, is a demand?

What grammar rules do you have in your native language?

You are showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS, Kane. ;-)
Yes. Powerful, isn't it. Stopped you dead in your tracks, then left
you spinning a diminishing spiral, never catching your tail, and
diving right up your own asshole with proof after proof, damning
statement after statement of your moral qualities, you intelligence,
your logic, your developmental age, and finally, your proof that
spanking parenting works....yourself.
Out of context isn't going to work for you...at least not with me.
You
have only the they unwary to play with any more, Doan.

You are weaseling, Kane!
How so, Doan? That I don't care to answer idle diversions by you, or
is it frantic diversions?
Well, unless I fancy to.
We who know you have wearied of your silliness.

Can't argue anymore and have to resort to ad-hom attacks, Kane? ;-)

"You are weaseling, Kane!"
If you say so, Doan.

I have seen my own son covered in bruises, administered by his
mother
and/or
her lover who is a professional martial arts expert.

If they are the legal caregives and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this
country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of
abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

The son has "NO defense"!!! The logic of Kane! Needs I say more?
;-)

You didn't bother to read. I'll re-post by cut and paste from
above.

Read and rephrase your comment (I see you forgot a ? After the !!!)
for clarity. It makes no sense unless I assume you didn't read and
understand:

LOL!
Apparently you are doing that embarrassed giggle thingie.

(Edited for spelling correction)
"
If they are the legal care-givers and one is the bio parent
giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this
country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of
abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.
"
Notice the "guidelines of abuse statutes in your state?"

Do you read what you write??? Why are saying the son has "no
defense"?
ARE THEY CHARGING THE SON WITH A CRIME???

No. None at all. Is that your tail I see stickin' out your butt?

There is more than one kind of "defense." If I am too small for you,
you big brute you, and you attack me, I have no physical defense. If
there is no statute that protects me I am undefended by the law, then
I am without "defense."

Is their no limit to the amount of embarrassment you can stand?

Are you then, without defense?

You really should pay me for lessons in both English and logic.

THAT is what these people stand for that you think are just
scoring
points, as you say below.

What "people"? Anybody defending child abuse here????

Yes. The Plant. Greegor the Whore, and Doan the Duplicitous. Read
on
and it will become clear.

You are lying! I havev'nt seen anyone defending child abuse here.

Then you haven't been reading here. And no, this time I'm not googling
for you. Hit on the name in any addy, as you very well know how to do,
and see for yourself. Try "hangup" on The Plant, and give a glim to
what Greegor thinks is discipline for an act that virtually every
child has experienced as a failure to control body function.

You don't call The Plant in It's vicious attack on children by
defending the actions of parent who injure them. I'd say that will do
for a "defending child abuse" wouldn't you? Or do you think that
because know and then they use lying weasel tactics similar to yours
and state, "I'm against child abuse" they really are?

Nixon comes to mind.

I, and I know you won't believe it, am NOT, decidedly NOT,
scoring
points as an objective. Don't mind getting a laugh now and then,
but I
am deadly serious about putting and end for all time to the
barbaric
practice of punishing children.

Yup! Kane is going to set all the children in juvenile halls
FREE!
;-)

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to work to reduce the
numbers
going in, and the numbers coming out who have healed from the
brutality of their parents that ended in them being incarcerated.

LOL! And thought you are for "not punishing" children! At first, I
was applauding you for being consistent, now you even lose that!

And what in the paragraph or anything I've written would draw you or
anyone else to conclude I'm in favor of punishing juveniles?

Society has to protect itself by separating the dangerous from the
population. While that may have the intent of punishment to some, to
me, especially for juveniles I see it as an opportunity for society to
reform that person or child from the damage you hold some
responsibility for, Doan.
And I'm going to do it, by influence now...since I'm not personally
engaged in juvenile work any longer....through the people I trained
to
use supportive non-pain based methods of therapy.

And keeping them juvenile halls is "non-pain" based????
It is consequence based. When I refer, as anyone that can read and
understand and has no lying agenda, to "pain based parenting" I am not
suggesting an end to natural consequences. It would be impossible to
isolate a child from consequence that are by nature.

One force of nature is the collective we call society. It may punish.
I can't stop that. But I can influence it if I think something works
better. I have had considerable success.

Do you think the debate by arguing that because something is done a
lot makes it right, or that I approve because I don't personally stop
it?

Interesting approach. You may become the author of a new logical
fallacy one day if you keep up your experimenting here.
Children that have been spanked are usually experts as dealing with
and even using aversive techniques. I don't want the to continue
to
practice avoidance over development of conscience, nor the more
sophisticated threat and pain on others their parents began
instructing them in.

You still haven't told me what the recidivism rate before and after
you were "involved". ;-)
It was in a prior post and you know it. And it isn't relevant to The
Question. Yours now is a return to the spin and dive tactic you are
over using. Can't you come up with some new things.

You can label it "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type BS grunting
noises",

Sure you do, if you have completely run out of argument,
logical,
intelligent, fact based argument, for what CANNOT be argued.
Doan
knows that and has been playing weasel for years with it.

LOL! I have never called anyone "stupid neurotic ultraliberal
type
BS grunting noises"

Then you admit to being part of the crowd I refer to that one
member
of did. Did you then disagree with your new butt buddy, Greegor the
Whore?

Oops! More insults from Kane! What a weasel! ;-)

"What a weasel!"

So, Doan, do you admit to being a willing associate of Greegor the
Whore knowing full well what he has been up to for the past three
years?

It's an easy question...not a weasel word in it. Can I count on a like
response?

You are known by the company you keep, unfair as that might be.
Thank
you.

Childish!

No, actually my old granny said that, and if you called her childish
she'd laugh for days over it.
You are the child here, and you can be sure others are seeing clearly,
even if they might have missed it before.

Personally I blush at the thought I actually, upon first read of a
post of yours, thought you might actually be a serious honest debater.
Now I find you are simply a master.
but I have seen Kane called other women "smelly-****"!

Unless you have met the subject of my epitaph, you cannot with
assurance claim I called a
"Women" a "smelly-****." In fact, even if It dresses as a women,
says
It's a women, you still can't say with conviction....and I suspect
you
don't KNOW It's a women at all, unless you have been down sucking
at
that smelly ****.

Losing it, Kane??? Remember that you were once crawled out of a
"smelly-****"! ;-)

I am NOT your brother, thank you very much.

I called a poster I refer to as The Plant, and respectfully assign
lovely plant names to, a "smelly ****."

Yup! I see that you always resort to name-calling when you ran out
of anything logical to say. Did your parents taught you that? ;-)

Odd, I don't "always" do anything, as it's impossible to do so. Did
you talk with yours about being spanked so much and the trouble it's
giving you know with your moral choices.
}| :}

It richly deserved that...though I apologize to any women her for
that
sexist choice. But then I did say "smelly." That surely doesn't
apply
to all women.

So which women don't have "smelly-****", Kane? Have you asked you
mom?
;-)

Obviously you didn't have to ask yours. {;-}

He thinks putting the responsibility for the actions of the
parent
on
the parent, ignoring that without restraints children at taking
the
beatings YOUR child is getting, absolves him of any blame.

ABSOLUTELY!

Thank you. Proof of your dysfunctional conscience. The failure, so
often seen in pain parented children, to develop the important
characteristic of human beings, empathy into conscience.

Great logic, Kane! I am to blame for the evils in this world???

No, just that part you've influenced, then after the centuries pass,
the growing influence, or the waning influence (we hope the latter).
We all have some responsibility.

Your inability to see that speaks volume to your character, or lack
thereof.

I have no responsibility for your child.

Another clear indicator. Humans, being social animals by evolution
and
contemporary evidence of their desire to clump into packs...even
their
driving habits show it on the freeways.....have by default
responsibility for each other.

I have empathy for other beings and resposibility for others in my
charge but I surely don't have any responsibility for your child!

Please describe empathy as YOU experience it. Many think they are
empathetic when they are in fact are feeling sympathy. There is a
world of qualitative difference. I have never seen anyone with a well
developed sense of empathy that could stand viewing what you do here
in these ngs and respond as you do...with denial of the antics of a
Plant, or buddying up to a Greegor.

No those with the capacity for actual empathy would go into overload.

Spanked children are at high risk of developmental dysfunction
concerning empathy, conscience. The latent capacity, seen in babies
that cry at the sound or sight of other babies crying, can be pretty
extinguished by just a few things in their early experience, an nearly
always extinguished if they are pain parented.

What I find when I talk with pain parenters about this is a complete
denial, rather like hysterical blindness....they cannot discuss it
rationally and calmly, the exhibit fear as though they are being
attacked. I suspect there is a causal chain from generation to
generation in this matter. Children raised by gentle parents tend to
have higher level development of conscience, even if they were from
families that spanked but were exposed by adoption or other change in
caretakers to gentle parenting.

There is hope Doan, even for you.

The only ones that exhibit signs of NOT feeling some responsibility
for other human beings are those that are in that spectrum of
socio-pathology of those that have dysfunctions of conscience, and
the
latent empathy that normal humans are born with.

Latent empathy, seen as automatic responses in very young infants
(crying when others cry, etc.) can be developed or it can be
retarded
by either neglect to stimulate it, or by suppression of it because
of
pain and fear.

The latter two can be naturally occurring, as in a long illness, or
continuous painful stimulation as in war or famine or other
stressors,
or by parental handling and treatment of the child.

The latter is the most prevalent in our world.

Doan is an example. Though I cannot say, beyond his admission that
he
was pain parented, he said he was spanked by his parents, which
conditions cause the atrophy of his conscience.

If this is true than 99% of all human beings since the beginning of
time
has no conscience??? You are being ridiculous!

I am glad that you took the time to read clear through my discussion
of this issue before answering. It shows there is hope. You didn't
interrupt from your set of usual diversions.

But I invite you to read history and ask YOURSELF that question
objectively. Do you think that the majority DID have consciences that
were very well developed?

And please, lay off the absolutes in your questions. They are a dead
giveaway of the rhetorical nature of your statement.

We are deceived often by surface characteristics, especially if we
have some problems with our own consciences. We think everyone is
Okay, because, after all they are like us and WE are okay.

You can hear the exact same think on death row. A complete loss of
connection to a sense of responsibility. A few there, knowing they
will die at the whim of the people, start to wake up but I tend not to
trust jail house conversions much.

Cons can get very good at faking conscience...and you, Doan. Well,
think about it.
That is why I am
not telling you or any other parent how to parent!

Which goes to my claim that you lack the capacity, even the
realization of it's existence, of empathy. In ‘Society,' including
even the meaning of its name, one DOES have a sense of
responsibility
for other members of that group...child or adult humans.

Empathy is difference from responsibilitly, Kane. I can feel sorry
for
you but I can not be respsonsible for you!
Ah, the tip off. One does NOT feel sorry as a part of or all of
empathy. YOU don't know what empathy is and you have NOT experienced
it.

And empathy is NOT about thinking or feeling responsible for someone
else, other than it can trigger such responses. In fact it so very
often does do that.

A completely empathetic person would, of course, be immobilized, so we
have to have our judgement come in and modify, leaven if you will,
empathy. But some lack it.

We can even have it for animals, even for anything in existence.
But
to not have it for children?

Huh??? And I thought that I said parents are responsible for their
own children!

Of course they are. Now parse carefully.

That does not in a moral society preclude others responsibility for
children of others.

We are not solitary predators, and as far as I know, except for a few
birds or some reptiles, there are no precedents for your belief if I
understand it, except in sociopathology.

Even herbivores take over parenting for each other, sure sign of an
empathetic response. They feel what the other's in their pack or herd
feel. Literately from sensed cues.

Humans have it to a considerable degree. Our living style shows it's
presence. We can even live like hive creatures...witness the Hakka, a
Chinese ethnic group, the originators of the Condominium.

But being solitary is rare for us and often unhealthy.

We do hold some responsibility for our fellows.

Tsk.

This is the same as leaving it up to bank robbers whether or not
killing the customers during a robbery is the best course of
action.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Great logic!

It wasn't an offering of logic. It was a metaphor. Metaphor's do
not
require logic to serve their intent. It is to trigger some logical
reasonable response in this case.

Metaphor without logic is called "false analogy".
The logic rests in its pattern matching to the circumstances under
consideration.
And internally to the elements of itself.
My metaphor stands as logical both internally and externally as to
intent.

It cann't trigger
some logical response if it is itself illogical!
That is correct. However if it is logical and you cannot see the
pattern similarity between the metaphor and what it addresses then
something is blocking it triggering in you the desired effect.

You didn't get it.

No!

I know. It wasn't a question. No question mark.


I failed.

No, you just lack logic!

That totally lacks logic. If I failed by lack of logic, that is a
failure. If I failed because you didn't get it, then that is a
failure.

If you GOT it, you could not answer "No!" as I'm quoting you from
above. Then the correct answer, the honest, non diversionary,
misleading tail disappearing up your own asshole answer would be,
"Yes, you lack logic!"

This should, of you are objective and honest and not impaired by
childhood trauma disrupting your development, be perfectly clear and
logical to you. It wasn't, hence, logically I doubt your capacity for
logic or objectivity or accuracy...and I fear for your honesty.
The victims still suffer, and Doan wants you to think he has no
responsibilty morally for that.

Yup, Kane! Robbers kill their victims because of me!!!

You and our conscience and your claims do not belong in the
metaphor.
You and your claims and your conscience SHOULD however be in the
point
of the metaphor. A sense of social responsibility for children.

It is illogical! How am I resposible for the action of the robbers?

If you know they are making a choice to rob, and you know that back
robbers sometimes kill bystanders or victims, and you respond to them
by saying, "make up your own mind" you are responsible.

If you are arguing in a semantic gneme then no, you are not, but if
you are arguing morally, you ARE most certainly. Your only excuse
would be to save your own hide if you knew they would kill you for
arguing with them.

I give you that out in your not arguing with parents against
spanking...they might kill you.
but people who condone that kind of human behaviour will
never
get MY respect! He has no worry about that. As you say, he
is
a point scorer, not a morally fit person. He doesn't care. That
is
the result of spankings he received as a child and cannot bear
to
hold his parents responsible for. Kane is talking about
morality! Yikes! ;-)

I presume you wish to continue. Say stop whenever you wish. This is
just a check. My own conscience requires that I be aware of those I
interact with, and the media limits me. I'm accustomed to body
language, nuances in tone of voice, pacing of speech, etc.

And your conscience told you to call other women "smelly-****"???

Oh yes, in this particular instance (notice I do not call all women
that, and recently in fact I posted a general apology to three or four
ngs to women that might be readers) it as a very restrained response
to a Tree that regularly posts apologies and defenses for people, even
churches, that brutally abuse children.

Am I supposed to continue to be reasonable with such things, after
they have gone on for years?

Which of us, you NOT confronting it over such defenses of abuse, or
I...confronting repeatedly, has the higher moral ground?

Between us, you who claims his is not responsible if some parent, with
his implicit and explicit support by way of saying "make up your own
mind" and posting in favor of spanking and against non-punitive
parenting, and myself, who urges people to find other means than pain
rather than risk harm to child child, who holds the moral high ground?

What is your purpose in being here posting to this ng. I think you've
said before, but I'm more interested in now, with the possibility you
have matured over time.

Words are what we use, so words are what I have to ask for to
govern
my participation.

But shouldn't it be used with logic?

Yes. Why do you use them for so much else?

He thinks they taught him something.

How do you know that I think, Kane? ;-)

I don't. I do know what you write. I presume you were thinking when
you wrote them. I most likely should have said "claims" rather than
"thinks."

Thank you for the English lesson. Let us hope one day the pupil
will
surpass the master.

LOL! And I thought you don't have "superiority" complex!

Odd, I just suggested that you could surpass me, Luke.



I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulant 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.


I have been on this newsgroup for a while now.
I know how to deal with them. The more they
post publicly the better it is for others to
see their true character. Sit back an enjoy
the spectacles! :-)

I have not been on this NG much.
Too me it seems that a lot of heated debate here is due to
misunderstanding.

On the contrary. We understand the opponents position very well
indeed. The opponents of ASZs can't define anything about
spanking
wihtout weales words, incomprehensible instence on US making the
definition we don't have to make because WE chose NOT to spank
children.

And you are welcome to make your own choice!

I know. And those in my society with a conscience, and the
intelligence and mental development to understand by and use cause
and
effect reasoning objectively, are heavily invested in my choice.

You haven't show that here!

That is an opinion, a judgement. It is not based in an objective view.

If I have failed to show it by your judgement it may well be your
judgement is faulty.

They tend to insist on being heard before I have a chance to
degrade
society with my abused children.

Why would you abuse your children? Are you sick???

As I have been pointing out, childish diversions.
To break a less important statement and use it for comedy is fun and
certainly excusable and breaks up the monotony. To do so to try and
divert from a valid question is not comedy.

Why do you have a
problem with other people making their own choice?

Because I DO have the capacity for analytical thinking and can
apply
it to social and political issues. Spanking is one, hence I'm
invested
in that issue. I actually care about how children are prepared for
and
enter society. I worked at and trained others that work at one of
the
many way-stations that children in pain parenting families stopped
at.

And you know their children better than 90%+ of the parents???

Never made that claim. And we've been through this many times. I am
not concerned with knowing better than 90+% of the parents. Only with
the potentially abusive ones. I'd like the 90+% to consider other
alternative than the high risk one of using pain to parent.

They may ignore me if they wish. I nevertheless feel both a personal
responsibility about the pain and injury of the children and a social
responsibility considering what I see around me in the world I
consider a very strong causal likelihood came from childhood
experiences.

I don't like the world in some of its parts that humans occupy. I
don't like the behaviors of some humans. I believe they have the
potential, and are capable of destroying humanity, possibly the entire
planet completely. I believe you are one of them.
I would have rather been unemployed.

But then, long before I had those experiences, from about age 19, I
was acutely aware this world was not a safe place and the people in
it
tended to be the most pervasive of dangerous elements. Drop me in a
remote desert or forested mountains and I'll sleep soundly with no
worries. The dangers are predictable and very manageable. Drop me
in a
city and I know perfectly well there is considerable
unpredictability
from that demographic that have been raised with pain parenting.

IOW, you can't deal with reality.

It is interesting to see a claim an accusation but no support. Please
be specific. What in that proceeding paragraph suggests I can't deal
with reality?

Instead, you "dreamed" of a society
on the top of a Malaysian mountain.. :-)

I'm not sure of your reference. I was talking about relative feelings
of safety. I was not talking about anyone else, and I know my own
senses and feelings. I simply said that I feel safer in those places
than I do in many cities. In fact I've found none that I can feel as
safe in as I do in desert and mountain remoteness. I live in one of
those. I grew up in both settings, and cities. I have the ability to
make the comparisons.
What is the point of your attack?

I had childhood friends that were themselves not well behaved, in
this
sense of being dangerous to others. I know how they were parented.
Their judgement is poor, and they lack a developed conscience. I
had a
very well developed conscience at 11 or 12.

And you sure showed your conscience here, "nver-spanked" boy! ;--)

Why are you so invested in finding out if I was spanked or not? This
particular bit of ad hom you indulge in is loaded with hostility and
anxiety I would guess.

I think that going after people that would harm children and
attempting reform and rehabilitation is very moral and an indicator of
a well developed conscience.

Compared to "let them make up their own minds" it stands out as such.

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in
the
archives they have either described spanking very different and
or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they
wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.

I and many people have examined the risks

Citations please.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)
I'm sorry but this will not do. You can't post a peer review that
refutes a study and keep claiming to use this study to refute. It's a
compromised citation now.

Any use of it is equally compromised. Your medical peer review did
that for you.

By the way, I've always found cross discipline reviews highly suspect
on the grounds that it entirely too simple to refute someone's
findings by using YOUR disciplines criteria to refute rather than the
criteria of the source.

I'm interested much more, and tend to give credit more, to peer
reviews or refutations that come from the same field, social science.

I've not found much to refute Strauss, more especially that he didn't
already point out in presentation, and calling out the Big Gun in
spanking support, Baumrind, only to have her show up with a short,
tiny pruned of contrary data demographics, sample, that was not even
peer reviewed, and read it to the premier national convention on child
and family social science was an exercise in the same kind of claim
support as you provide us.

Strauss stands in question, not in refutation, for most thinking
people, but for YOU Doan, special as you are, you have negated him by
using a peer review to refute him. Or you can admit you are using data
that is in question. And if it is in question in part, it is in all.

Do you wish to do that?

and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better.

Citations please. And try to find some that aren't in Goobldegook.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)

As I said above. You are using self declared refuted study material.
Are you wishing to do that? {-)}

The sources you are most likely are to refer to are focused
primarily
on pain ... that is they are still punishment based, simple not
direct
CP.

Including "talking to your children"????
I am not sure to what you refer. "Talking to children is only one
thing, not isolated for study, in a spectrum of punishment based
discipline. When we have a study that confines itself to non pain
parenting techniques that are entirely free of punishment, and
controls for unintended punishment (as a child might see a natural
consequence in that light), we'll get back to you, or as I invited
you, do one yourself. "

Frankly I'd be interested in seeing even some informal observation by
you. Can you find unspanked children in your area that are raised
without a punishment model? You might try a call to Tom Gordon's
outfit. As I recall they are in LaJolla. You could find a class in
your area, go through it and watch the progress by staying in touch
with the families as they learned applied over time the principles I'm
suggesting.

Frankly, you'll be pleased to know, I think in many instances they
fail even more than spanking. Both are pointless when dealing with
creatures that want to and are committed to learning.

That's "Goobldegook"! :-)

Why thank you for the critique. Didn't I say the pupil may well
surpass the master?
Here, I'd try to clarify.

I think you'll like it that I agree. Some no-spank parenting technique
suck and are worse than spanking. They are the highly punitive ones,
of course.

And...spanking and psychological punishments by parents are equally
pointless. I also know they are disruptive to children, because child
naturally want to learn. It's the parenting or teaching style that can
disrupt that the most. Or support it. Punishment of any kind,
physical or mental is not conducive to education.

To use pain parenting one has to be so blind or ignorant they
believe
the child doesn't want to learn, just because the child want's to
learn something the parent either doesn't see, or the parent
doesn't
want them to learn.

I know. Parents are just stupid right, Kane???

Those who use pain to teach? Some could be stupid, yes. More often
it's ignorance or mental aberration most often by way of their own
childhoods. I don't really think intelligence is a critical deciding
factor. I've worked successfully with the entire gamut of intellect
and all managed well. The more intelligent got a spell hit out of
though with their superior ability to put two and two
together...connect the dots as it were.
Your parents are so
smart! ;-)

Loving. More empathy. Happier. Relaxed. Less anxious. Gentle. Excited.
Brave. These things could go to make a more smart person, but I don't
think "smart" is a useful assessment.

Instead of redirecting and teaching, the use aversion. That is one
of
a maxim of pain parenting.

Great theory but is it pragmatic!

Yes.

Where is the proof?
In the lives of the people I've known, and still do and the children
they produced who are coming into middle age that I still now, and the
quality of their lives.

No, I haven't done any research. If you will only accept on scientific
research then how is it can tie your shoes in the morning. I've not
seen a study on the efficacy of doing it one way or the other.

How ever there are studies you can read. I don't expect you'll get it,
because you seem blind to objective analysis. I think you are
suspicious for a reason.

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems
10
times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would
use
such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal
are counterproductive."

Interestingly this is yet another of those deceptively worded bits
you
are so enamored of. Even a perfunctory scan shows that...or you
took
it so out of context the authors can't be understood.

You can do better than the "out of context" argument, Kane! :-)

No, I cannot. If you took it out of context that is a valid and
important argument for an attempt to dishonestly change the meaning.
But you keyed in this little bit of nonsense before the argument I did
make. Why is that I wonder?

What is more interesting is that your posting of this bit of
freefloating out of context text came after my statement:

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in
the
archives they have eithe described spanking very different and
or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they
wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.


Unless something is missing there is NO responding text from you until
this:

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems
10
times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would
use
such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal
are counterproductive."

Recall, I said we ask them to examine risks. Then you post something
about non-spanking parenting methods. The two are not connected.

What in your response answer my statement that they do not make risk
assessment for spanking.?

While I attempted to make some coherent response to this out of
context bit you threw from your sleigh to slow down the wolves (it's
rumored Russian peasants would throw a child or two, then the women,
then the weakest male..etc.) that does not make it a valid and honest
response to my statement. Just another diversion.

The only possible way to understand even the bogus claim would be
to
rewrite it. I'll do so, with the apparently missing but author
hoped
for "understood" words included.

Edit where you disagree, this is an exercise in clarification, not
a
debate at this point:


The use of alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial
problems 10 times
more than did non-impulsive physical punishment (with impulsive
physical punishment not accounted for), and the alternative
disciplinary responses predicted child impulsivity 3 times more
strongly.

No one would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time
out,
and/or privilege removal are counterproductive."

Here is an accounting of the bogus:

- Who is using reasoning, time out, and/privilege removal as being
counterproductive, except me of course? (Not a factor in this
statement) Non spankers use a lot of these aversive punishments,
but
not as much as spankers.

NO ONE!
Illogical on it's face. A plea not a fact. Some will do so using the
criteria offered in the claim quoted.
So why ban one and not the others?
So why ask about banning when this does not relate to the statement I
made claiming a lack of rigorous assessment of damage from spanking?

See the logic?
Of course. I also see that you threw this out to divert the wolves.

- What "antisocial behaviors" are being tabulated. Are they actual
directed at others words, hits, pinches, throwing, or are they in
the
- non compliance and exploratory category, the things children do
by
their nature and development? If the former they are serious, if
the
latter, it's to laugh....no use of alternative disciplinary
responses
or non-impulsive physical punishments need to be use at all. It's a
test of hurt vs non-hurt, not one kind of punishment being more or
less effective than another. Or it should be.

And you told me you have read the study. Were you lying or you
have forgotten how it was tabulated?

A completely irrelevant response. You did not address the issues I
brought up. And those from the very bit of dross you offered.

- What, for goodness sake, is a "non impulsive physical
punishment,"
as opposed to an impulsive one? And how could the be testing for
the
latter. And who, upon survey when asked, "did you spank after
giving
it some thought and deciding on the punishment, or did you just
impulsively spank?" would answer affirmatively to the latter very
often?

Read the study and learn.

Diversionary. I asked YOU a question. You haven't answered. If you
post a partial bit from a study and expect the person to remember all
the study you are being clearly ingenuous. YOU don't remember the
whole study, why should I. If you have an argument YOU support it from
the study. I'm not obligated to and my reading or not is irrelevant to
your attempt to obfuscate that you have left the issues under
discussion.

Please don't argue from ignorance.
Not in the least. Arguing with someone that will not give the
supporting facts is a way to expose their duplicity. My inability to
respond in a fashion YOU determine as correct is an exposure of YOUR
dishonesty in withholding needed information.

You
looked foolish that way! :-)

Because YOU withhold facts and expect me to remember them accurately
from a whole study?

I don't think so. If you have an argument and there are facts that
support your argument and you withhold them, who looks foolish again?

- And I must revisit this strange free floating declarative: "No
one
would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out,
and/or
privilege removal are counterproductive."

Why would THAT be the question? Productivity is the question do
they
work? Not, do they keep something from working...counterproductive.

Because that is what the current "child development experts" are
recommending in lieu of spanking!

I am not one of the "child development experts" you are debating.
Unless you think they are reading you are failing to address me, and
MY arguments. Very neatly.

I recommend nonpunitive parenting...that means no kind of deliberate
punishments of any kind. I will argue that with you, but I cannot
argue someone else's argument. See the CDE's you mention for further
nonsense.

I've many times criticized the use of other punishments to replace
physical punishments so if you continue to argue with me that the non
CP disciplines are not proven to be effective, you are preaching to
the choir.

You know, like "quality time"
instead of just spending time with your child.

I'm unfamiliar with that sophisticated a claim. To me quality time
with a child can be any kind of time, as long as you are WITH that
child and not amusing yourself with Pinocle with the neighbors. Alone
with the child is always quality time if you aren't diverting yourself
most of it.

What they mean to say is attention to the child. Undistracted
attention for even 10 minutes is a huge improvement in communications
and connection with the child and enhances her sense of self worth
immensely. And it's fun. And kids afterward are much more compliant
and cooperative and at peace.

I have taught people how to use such powerful tools for that kind of
connection that they could get their child quality time down to 10
minutes...but most don't want to...too much fun being with the child.

I'm reminded of my efforts over the years to decipher federal
guidelines relating to the application of federal laws. The laws
themselves are paeans of clarity compared to the gobbled rhetoric
of
the guidelines. And the damage is clearly evident in what
bureaucrats
can get away with in the applications of the law under such
wording.

That would explain CPS. The people on the top get most of the money
and the front line social-workers and children get the scraps!

Please list, alpha order for ease of referral and include cites and
sources and links, 10 organizations that are not, in the use, so
organized?

Never had an exec level job, have you. There is a reason they get paid
more. The removal of a good one shows nearly immediate disruption and
degradation downline...until her shoes are filled with an equal or
better.

No, the children don't get scraps. They get what the law mandates they
get, every single penny, and often even more that workers struggle to
scrounge up. And front line social workers aren't underpaid for the
job description. They are underpaid for the guff they take and the
miserable scenes they go into every working day of their working
lives. There is no relief from the misery they are witness to.

The pain of children. Their physical and psychic injuries. Their
developmental disabilities they'll carry for life that will make their
lives full of more pain and a great deal of loss, much anger and
despair they may never be rid of.

Rape with internal as well as external injuries, beatings, broken
bones, black eyes on a beautiful baby, toddlers in traction, babies
dying in the foster mother's arms because no one else but the worker
and the FP care enough to be there, not even those ever loving
parents.

You aren't worthy to sympathize with workers. You are an insult to
decent people who have conscience and sense of social responsibility.

A few month back I got a call from a grandmother who had to have her
own daughter arrested the year before. The grandmother then got to go
through a year of caring, alone, for an aids baby. She asked me to
come over, as it was the weekend and no one at her local CPS office
could leave except on an allegation investigation call...on two on
duty.

She needed someone to sit with her through the last hours of the
child's life.

Leave CPS workers out of your smarmy sick attempts to divert from your
immoral displays here.

So with the very strange citation that was for support of your
claim
of

"I and many people have examined the risks and found that the
non-cp
alternatives are no better." What? Not more counterproductive? That
non-impulsive CP was three times better at child impulsivity
control?

Yup!

And the relevance, asshole?

Just how much "impulsivity" (what the hell IS that exactly) do we
wish
to control in the child? Or is this the Singapore model?

You have read the study. Why ask me?

Because YOU posted the partial information. I'm not going to respond
to a partial support of something you want to post to defend something
that we weren't discussing. It's a new subject entirely...and
yours...defend it with the information. Not with dumping small pieces
of **** you found on your last trip home.
That is why I have been asking for years now. Is there any
"peer-reviewed" research that showed that the non-cp alternatives
are
any better under the same statistical scrutiny?

The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long
long ago. I love reading it, watching you demand, refusing to make
a
simple request of the researcher. He's nice, really he is, but I
don't
think you agree with his findings so you are staying as far from
them
as possible.

Now you claim you have read the Embry study, yet just days ago, on
this
very same newsgroup, you said you have read it.

Did you mean "you said you have *not* read it"?

I had not read it for some time. I post the magazine piece as I do not
have reprint rights to the study. I don't think I intended to deceive.
In the middle of the conversation I cannot recall something I haven't
read recently. I might well say, I haven't read it.

So are you lying now?
No I'm not lying. I am not intending to deceive. I have the study. I
reread it recently. Not even in detail, just perused.

And if I were lying would it diminish your responsibility to ask for
it yourself if YOU claim it isn't valid?

Why do you dwell on these small details not relevant to issues. My
honesty or lack of same has ZERO effect on the credibility of the
Embry study.

Do you wish to refute the Embry study? Ask for it. I will not debate
with one of us NOT having the data at hand. I cannot legally post the
study. GET YOUR OWN ****ING COPY, NITWIT.

It's available.
And...as usual.....

So show me the details of this Embry study. How many children did
they studied? What methodology did they used? Come on, Kane.
Enlighten
me!

I am not going to offend another's copyright to let you play. The
study is available from the source. I even gave you the source. I will
not post parts or all of someone else's intellectual property without
permission. I don't wish to ask for permission because I know the
kinds of **** you will pull with the information.

If YOU want to play **** stick with someone's study YOU ask him for
it. I respect him and it. And the laws of copyright.

You didn't provide a citation that included "the same statistical
scrutiny." You are simply up to the same asinine nonsense as
always.
Demands for proof where you provide none yourself.

I did provide the citation: Straus & Mouradian (1998)!

That is a study refuted now, to your satisfaction, or you wouldn't
have posted it as proof, a cross discipline peer review. Do you wish
to use a refuted study to support your argument?
If you ask for statistics to refute your claims the lest you could
provide is some statistically valid studies. There aren't any.

That is why I ask the parents to make up their own mind.

Why do you have to ask them to do anything at all? If you are in fact
convinced there are no valid studies why do you not use the most
neutral statement of all...shut your mouth. That would prove you have
morals.

Instead you rant and taunt, and lie and run, and **** your **** and
slup up your asshole to hide.
You are here. This is a newsgroup that is for the consideration of
spanking issues. Telling people to make up their own mind presupposes
they could make an informed decision.

You do not admit to them that there is no support for spanking. YOU
post claims there is.



It is not
who making the claim, Kane. It is the anti-spanking zealotS like
you that making claims with no proof!

And now you are lying again. We have posted a massive amount of data
that you cherry pick from to attack. You dig for peer reviews, and
phony publically declared nonsense by the "experts" that isn't peer
reviewed to attempt to discredit sound research..by avoidance.

We are tired of your cherrypicking asshole behavior.

If you are asking for us to match the "statistical scrutiny" of the
proffered citation, don't you think that a bit lower than Strauss?

So now you dish Straus? ;-)

I have not defended Straus. I consider his study a step... a rather
big step, considering the restraints of method that must be part of
social science studies. No destructive testing, no deliberate
application of pain, they aren't even let off the hook if they observe
abuse...they too must report. No, Straus is a very brave man to have
done as much as he did, and the little jackals that come snapping at
his heels he responds to as a gentleman and scholar.

His work will be considered one day a seminal to this question of CP.
No study can do the entire job at once. It's a rare one that can cover
an entire field of inquiry. It must be done in steps. He has done a
remarkable one.

Other studies I've cited you stay well away from. Why is that?.
Haven't you ever noticed that I've never cited Strauss for support
of
any claim of mine.

Are you sure? If I can provide one, just one, would you admit to the
fact that you are being dishonest? Or would you just weasel, again?
:-0
Is mistaken always "dishonest" to you? Do you realize how patently
dishonest THAT is?

I can make a mistake. It is not dishonest of me to do so. I can
misquote myself. It is not dishonest of me to do so unless I did it
knowingly. A mistake, in English, is not a lie.

Attempting to make a mistake a lie is a lie in itself. When I question
you and suggest you are lying I do offer you the same opportunity to
admit a mistake. With you though, I understand your sickness and how
very difficult it is for you to admit a mistake...for you believe,
apparently by your posting above, that a mistake is a lie.
And in the end simply data counting, like abuse data, looking
around
you, would provide anybody with "reasonable standards" all the
support
they needed to understand the risks of spanking vs the near zero
risk
of not.

Then go ahead and convince the Supreme Court and 90%+ of the parents
in the USA to ban spanking??? Are they not "reasonable"???
I don't have to convince the SC, nor 90+%. Only state after state. And
that is being done. And country after country. And that is well
underway.

And all I have to convince them of is that there really IS no
conceivable way to write a law that protects the rights of parents to
spank that the public can count on.

Complaints here about CPS abound and for that very reason. It isn't
possible. You have tried your considerable talents at weaseling and
answer to The Question, and despite your extraordinary capacity for
personal embarrassment, have failed miserably.

You have helped me. Others are watching our posts. They access
legislators. You are going to become famous.

Your weaseling may well be quoted in the bills that will be written.
For you see this IS a constitutional question of interpretation of
law. As each law is defeated, and I wish them defeated, that is used
to prosecute abuse by parents on the grounds of abridgement of their
civil rights....those pertaining to the prosecution, not the right to
beat their child, a law will have to be written that make any use of
force against a child illegal. They will enjoy the same protection YOU
do against assault.

And you are stupid enough to engage in this question and provide even
more proof that the laws can't be enforced because of the lack of
clarity over The Question..WHERE IS THAT ****IN' LINE.

NO BODY KNOWS because it's immeasurable. The only solution the assault
solution.

I want to thank you for all your time and trouble, and I want to thank
you for all the children that will not live in fear, will not have
bones broken, will not have flesh bruised, will enjoy a family that
cherishes them as they should be.

And finally I want to thank you for your contribution to families.
Many will rethink their spanking decision because of you. They will
see your disingenuousness in telling them to make up their own mind
while promoting spanking, and reviling non punitive and non CP
methods.

Your loss of empathy in childhood, as sad and tragic as it is for YOU,
will serve other children, and families you sympathize with.

Thank you.

We can't say, and neither can you, exactly how much the risk
is, but we CAN say they are high.

If you can't say how much, how can you say they are high???
By the count. 3 million reports of child abuse in a year. 800k+ abuse
and neglect cases.

Any fraction of that number is "high" my book. I tend not to see
injured children statistically. I colors my arguments. So sue me.

The variables are impossible to deal with. There isn't enough money or
parental intensity to observe accurately or training to know what to
look for, to ensure that parents just doing a spanking within the
lower ranges of intensity, duration, frequency, can account for a
child who might be mentally compromised lacking outward signs (rather
common), or a physically dangerous condition that hasn't manifested
sufficiently for the parent to spot, or if a child has had an
unreported injury that could be intensified by a spanking.

No, the argument for spanking is too often based on guesses. Not
spanking walks a family safely right OUT of those risks, and more as
they become very unlikely to lose their children on a spanking abuse
allegation.

Where is the proof? BTW, even Straus admitted that the risk is LOW!
I do not think he was referring to injury, do you? If he was I'd say
the same to him. Low risk does not equate with individual child safety
in the light of clarity in limits shortfalls.

That argument that spanking should be a choice based on low risk
probability is socially irresponsible and if he made it I'd have no
trouble in asking him to reconsider. To the owner of the life life is
not replaceable. And the damages to body and mind can be lifelong and
irrefutable.
There ARE broken bones, and minds, out there the result of
spanking. I
play the odds. No spanking has very low odds of resulting in
injury.

Using that logic, you can say that not discipline your kids at all
has
a very low odds of resulting in injury!

No, I cannot say that. YOU can say that to misled.
Not PHYSICALLY PUNISHING your kids has a very low odds of resulting in
injury. Just what I said. Using non pain parenting to discipline has
the lowest possible chance of injury to mind and body.

I often point out here and elsewhere that the word discipline is not
the same as punishment, not in this time or the past. Each derives
from the Latin. A study shows that one could possibly include
punishment within the meaning of discipline but it is NOT explicitly
punishment in itself. It is about teaching and learning. One
definition was, "to lead out."

I find "to lead out" very difficult to reconcile with "to cause harm
to penalize" as "Punere" means. The root of "punish."

One of the maxims of academia, at least where I come from, is to know
the meaning of your terms. I see great harm in poorly understood and
so poorly stated meanings.

To punish does not always mean to teach. And to discipline does not
always mean to punish. And the terms are miles apart in etiology and
semantically.

The question has always been
what is a better "non-cp" alternative and how do we know that it is
better?

That is "A" question. Not "The" question. The Question has to do with
choices parents make.
And in the best tradition of medicine, "Physician, do no harm, " I
would suggest to parents, Parent Do No Harm.
They cannot respond to that with spanking as the option they chose.

I have never tried to provide proof that all non-cp alternatives are
better. Some are no better than CP. What I have contended, and offered
some support for by citation and reference that you refuse to go and
get yourself and insist I educate you while you play at peer review,
is that non-PUNITIVE methods work are the best of all.

Dr. Embry, I believe might not agree with me. I haven't found in his
studies anywhere he says that in all circumstances non-punitive is
successful or superior, but in the street entry study he found the, to
his astonishment...being a believer in spanking at the time....they
where extraordinarily effective.

They weren't non-CP punishments, they were non PUNISHMENT teaching and
training.

You and others here have been offered such information from better
qualified people than I in these ngs, and you have scoffed at them and
ridiculed them. You have NOT tried to learn about them other than GIVE
ME SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
If we'd waited for scientific proof of the obvious you and I would be
notching sticks and sending them by runner from here to there to have
this conversation.

We used electricity to our benefit long before we knew what an
electron was and did.

Well, there are an increasing number of us, like Embry, Straus, Tom
Gordon, and those in psychology and child development before him, that
have been "using electricity" for decades to the benefit of families
and children and society.

Researchers ARE looking at the involved "electrons," more and more.
Learning theory is no longer based on observations of the external
behaviors of subjects. The researchers are looking directly at
realtime live scoped brain activity as subjects are tested in learning
tasks. Been going on for years, and it's showing remarkable things.

I do not think we'll see all to soon though, children wired up and
spanked while they try to learn about conscience, and why we don't hit
our neighbors, or bite our little sisters.

It would be enlightening. We can track the parts of the brain that do
different tasks, and are involved in characteristics we didn't know
how focus loci on the brain. Wonderful stuff. We know now what part of
the brain is involved in processing incoming data for moral
assessment...conscience now has a brain location...and it's not very
big. And gross abuse of a child can cause it to show dark...NO
activity...now that scary.

Would YOU be willing to guess at the limit of spanking your child and
the development or suppress of that area of the brain? Not me. I
figured out on my own by behavioral observation and reading of others
observations that hitting a child does NOT make them develop a
conscience. The contrary. Every sociopathic teen I ever worked with
came from a punishment oriented over-controlling family....some not
even that much.

I still can't find where anyone injured a child by not spanking
them.
Please provide some data on this. A negative is so difficult to
prove
that scientist use as an axiom, "You cannot prove a negative."

And you want me to prove a negative??? What logic!
Yes. That WAS my point, wasn't it. To point out the illogic? Why would
I post it is impossible if I actually was challenging you to do it.

My point is, **** you are dumb, that I don't HAVE to risk injuring a
child by my choice of discipline. And no one has been able to prove
harm from NOT painfully disciplining though some have tried, and lied,
and been caught at it, and are murderously angry at being caught.
What they HAVE learned to do over the years is avoid the hard
questions. Either they refuse to answer, or debate (they do
anything
but debate when asked to), or they insist we answer our own
questions.

Are you talking about LaVonne? ;-)

Why yes. I'm thinking of her restraint and humoring of you and the
Plantlife. I have no such inhibitions or niceties of delivery. I'm
thinking that your citations and claims just as this one you tried
with me left her incredulous. The sheer gall of anyone to try and
palm
off such drivel and defend with such unreasoned claims as yours is
an
affront to anyone that can think and is honest.

But my citations are the same one that she produced! I just brought
them
out in the open so that everyone can see them. She can't debate me
and
instead, has chosen to run! ;-)
Liar. I watched. You played the same games as you try with me. I have
more patience than she and much much more experience with the
criminally insane and morally degenerate to bring to this little tete
a tete.

But in the final analysis, what drives folks away from you is the
disgust at your continued defense of what is so plainly
indefensible.
The nonsense desperate twisting with divergent word choices, the
reliance on fuzzy meanings and word choices that are plainly
indefinable, that citation filled with them, concepts that come out
of
no known discipline, social science, medical science, mental
health...it's as though you and your sources are making up a
discipline of madness.

LOL! It is only nonsense to the anti-spanking zealotS. It makes
sense to 90%+ of the parents out there.

You can look at the world and brag about the 90+% having sense?
Hmmm...you really are impaired. I have the uncomfortable embarrassment
of now being guilty, I think, of doing what I recently admonished
others for doing...mixing it up critically with someone obviously
mentally health compromised.
A whole segment of the population screaming, "I'd hit my child if I
want to and call it spanking and I'll invent MORE words to
obfuscate...and you can't stop me because the law and some
"reasonable
people" protect me."

LOL! We can just declare you as the "Emperor" instead! ;-)

I don't recall asking for the job. Nor is there anything on such a
subject in the paragraph you refer to. I simple described what in fact
happens rather often and you defend.

Imagine how better the world would be if the anti-spanking zealotS
are in charge! ;-)

Hmmmm... now that you mention it, that IS my long term goal. Yes, I
want the entire world taken over by people that do not hit children or
punish them. I am, of course realistic. It will take some time...but
at one time the world people were of two kinds only , the peaceful and
the raiding barbarian. Would you deny the peaceful seem to be winning?
We don't seem to be wiping each other out at quite the same rate as
before. Even with closer proximity.

I believe we are not only learning peace but breeding it as well. Men
and women who are peaceful seem to be seeking each other out. I don't
recall so many man doing primary parenting when I was young. I was the
only one I knew. Now they are all over the place, learning peace from
their children.
You are witnessing, if you've followed this thread, something of
a
thumbnail sketch of what has been going on for years. The same
tired
avoidance and misdirection and frequently instead of answering
asking
stupid unrelated questions.

That would be you, Kane! ;-)

What questions have I not answered that you asked? That is so
common
in your posts that great long sections I leave in just so folks can
see all the times you simply ignored, and all the times you've said
things as brilliant as "That would be you, Kane! ;-)" instead of
directly answering the charge or claim made.

Let's start with the details of the Embry study, Kane. You said you
haven't read it and now you said you read it long ago!

Is that one of the details of the Embry study? I did not know my
reading it was included in the data.

I do not know that if I made a typo or if I am being taken out of
context that it's not relevant to the content of the Embry study.

I've seen monkeys with better manners.
So me all those times you haven't misdirected, all those times you
have asked questions that weren't stupid, "Are you talking about
LaVonne? ;-)"

You've no arguments. Just a litany of such garbage.

Only if you are looking into a mirror! ;-)
What? You just said "let's take the Embry study." This isn't about the
Embry study. It's more litany of garbage and a refusal to take what
you just brought up an discuss it.

You can either take my word for it if I claim I am basing a statement
on something from the Embry study or ......... YOU........CAN......GO
............AND .............GET........IT.

We don't spank, hence he have no worry about injury to your
children.
The ONLY argment they've ever been able to mount against
non-spanking
is "you can't prove by peer reviewed scientific research that it
works
better than spanking."

And your answer is????

My answer is: And again, garbage.

No one can set up the experiment. It would be immoral and illegal.

Who said anything about an experiment? Being stupid again, Kane.
Studies have been been on spanking and non-cp alternative. There
haven't been any experiment!

YOU, stupid, posted a peer review to refute Sraus. The argument, which
you apparently didn't read, or didn't understand, shoots down your use
of such studies without experimentation. If you wish to use Straus as
a standard to demand similar studies then you have to figure how to
UNREFUTE the refutation of the good doctor you cited and quoted.
Go back and read it. He used the failure to do experiments as a reason
to invalidate portions of the Straus study.
Please review what stupidity is...you have a terribly bad case of it.

So you refuse and deny the studies that are observational and
survey
with a claim they aren't scientific on the same standards where the
subject can be destroyed or manipulated painfully.

I said they should be taken with a grain of salt. The children of
teenage, minority, single-mothers are not the same as your children.
You know your children best. You make your own decision on this
subject. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

Yes, it is clear that you are stupid.

Yes. I and those that read this (as if they didn't know before) are
clear that you have a bad case of denial of the facts.

Yes, and your claim is patently false. A blanket statement that an
individual or parents collectively know their child best, better than
anybody else, would have to presuppose that they know all of the
disciplines that serve children. And a genius of factual knowledge
access under difficult conditions...something that human beings are
NOT good at.

A parent might MIGHT know more quickly than a doctor that something is
wrong with their child, but not WHAT. And it's obvious by the great
number of child abuses that some parents DO NOT know their child best
if the child welfare constitutes a "best."

I'm reminded of the parent in the supermarket

What they smugly wallow around in is the denial that we don't
have
to. They have jails and mental illness on their side to defend
spanking and pain parenting....it abviously works, if you want
to
keep those places busy. Just look at Singapore and Sweden.
:-)

As I said, "smugly."

What wold I look for, corruption and dictatorial savagery against
the
people on the one hand, and less child abuse on the other?

So you prefer to see more abuse??? And just to clarify my point, I am
not claiming any casual link here!

Our children, who they claim are spoiled and are little bundles
of
ASB
(anti social behavior) are the criminals and crazies, yet our
children
can't be found in such populations in any statistically
significant
numbers, and when one gets down to it, since 90+% of children
are
spanked in this country, it's a given, unless they want to prove
that
teh 10% or so unspanked are ten percent of prison and mental
healt
facility population.

Lying again, Kane. Did I say anything about your children being
spoiled?

Did I say you did? I said "they."

And who are they???

Is "they" inclusive of only YOU and no one else? I had no idea you
were a plural. Sockpuppetry?

So in a post replying to me, you go off a tangent and posted that
which
have nothing to do with me???


Semantic trickery isn't debate. It's a ploy. You are exposed.

It's your ploy not mine! Remember you claimed "juvenile crime-rate"
and NOT "juvenile violent crime rate"????

In this case I suspect we are not all talking about the same
kind
of
"beating" of children.

No, actually we are NOT. The language is of child abuse by
"discipline" is kept intentionally vague by them because they
know
they cannot defend such practices in concrete measurable terms.
Short
of experiments that were desctructive of the subjects they are
up
the
creek.

Then the researchers must be stupid right, Kane?

It's "stupid" not to use test subjects in experiments when it would
be
immoral and illegal?

Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-) Who said anything about
experiments?

You refuse to accept as valid other studies and methodology Doan.
Who
would be the stupid one? Should there be no observational only or
observational non destructive, survey, or even review of the body
of
research because those do not meet the standard of medical
experiment?

Nope! I said they should be hold to the same standards? If we are
claiming that the "alternatives" are better, then we should subject
the same "alternatives" to the same statistical scrutinies!

Personally I don't think we could get most parents to give up their
children such things and autopsy later.

I know. Parents are just stupid! ;-)

But we note you didn't respond to anything but the last sentence.
No
opinion on the other claims I made. You are known, sometimes, Doan,
by
the company you don't keep.

I known by who I am! And you certainly don't know who my company
are!

Did they study "beating"
and not spanking???

They studied CP. Sadly, they did not accept that some parents will,
with your support and permission, decide for themselves what
reasonable CP is, and manage to injure and or kill their children.

And spanking is not CP??? I gave support and permission for peole
to kill their children??? Since when did I become the emperor?

Now there would be a study. The entire spectrum.

Surely YOU could do it Doan.

How? I am just a simple boy. ;-(

They seem quite willing to continue the risky practice and let
the
children be injured by those who lose control and pass the line
into
abuse to preserve THEIR right to whack their children when and
how
they see fit, as though it were some medieval right of the
manor.

Yup! Parents just don't care about their own kids!!!

Oh, I think you shouldn't make such a statement in the plural. I
have
to point out your disreputable use of English once again.

90%+ of the parents!

Back for another English lesson folks. One he won't bother answer
to...but necessary after all:

One has to presume, in the use of the plural that all individuals
in
the set have the same characteristics being associated...as in
"don't
care about their kids?"

Since that is patently untrue....some parents do care and some
don't,
then it is incorrect to assign such a belief to the opponent. I
didn't
say, you might not, that all parents didn't care about their kids,
as
evidenced by my use of "those who lose control."

That would indicate to most native users, and reasonably literate
users, of the English language that I referred to a subset of
parents,
not the whole.

Which introduces the interesting opportunity for a question:

Do you think I meant all parents don't care about their children?
What in my post would lead you to believe that, and if you cannot
find
it are you prepared to retract the obviously rhetorical and
accusatory
question?

Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-)


Their claims to defend the practice amount to "it's been done
for
thousands of years without harm...etc." When they know damn
well
it has had great harm. Yup! Parents just don't care about
their children. Parents are just there to harm their kids!!!
Great
logic, Kane! ;-)

In the matter of logic I just blushed for you.

Oh, I am touched! :-)

In the matter of honesty pertaining to you, I just flushed.

You meant just as I flushed the stuff that come from your mouth?

In the matter of conscience and decency pertaining to you, I just
sighed.

:-(

For you see, Doan, not a soul here, not even your Tree, or your
Whore,
could support that you don't know that SOME parents, that very
population that overshoots the mark on spanking and other harm to
children, DON'T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN SUFFICIENTLY NOT TO HARM THEM.

But that is you claim! You used the small percentage of parents who
abused their kids and generalized to all parents who spanked.

So "no," not all parents. And "yes," some parents. That has to be
true
with rare exception when using plurals to distinguish as large a
demographic as "parents."

or spanking "parents".

Or do you really want to defend a claim (if you are making it) that
ALL parents love their children?

That is not what I claimed. But I can say with confident that ALL,
except
a few, love their children! But that would lead to your problem of
calling ALL spankings as abuse. For if ALL spankings are abuse then
ALL spanking parents are abusers! Your call. :-)

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters
of
harm
or not have been harmed by their own received spankings as
children.

AND KANE RECEIVED NO SPANKINGS AND LOOK HOW A "NEVER-SPANKED" KID
LIKE
KANE TURNED OUT!!! :-)

On what evidence do you base your claim I received no spankings as
a
child? I had many people parent me. I've said so. When asked I
honestly answered that my parents never spanked me.

Semantic and weaseling again. So here is your chance to make it
clear.
Were you or were you not spanked as a child?

Why do you wish to know? You claim I already said I was
"never-spanked." You jumped up and down daring me to challenge, "I
DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" (I haven't heard that since 4th grade)
your claim that I had said I was "never-spanked" and or denied it. Now
your are demanding to know something you claim you already know by my
"confession."
What gives with you, Doan. Is it important to you to know if I was or
not? Why is it important to you? And why don't you simple pound my ass
with this all important piece of information that you say you have
already?

MORE weaseling? More threats, empty as your head? Whassup bro?

You have a problem with plurals and singulars and the understanding
of
them, do you not?

I've never said if anyone else spanked me or not. And frankly,
other
than your use of something to harass with, the information is of no
use to you. So, no deal.

Cop out!

But I thought you already knew. And had said I wasn't? How could That
be a cop out to not tell you what you already know? I believe you. You
must know if you would be so brash as to post a school boy taunt. Go
ahead, embarrass me. Expose me. The whole world will know one way or
another, then we can get back to what you are diverting from with this
nonsense. Times'awastin' monkey boy.
So, how have I turned out?

From what I see on this newsgroup, very bad!

And your capacity to objectively judge is based on...?

Well....

I have a peace of mind and comfort I didn't know could come with so
much work of the kind I did. And it's with some pride I say that I
managed to not burn out as others did along the way.

I am your worst nightmare, Doan.

Actually, you are what I look forward to in this newsgroup -
anti-spanking
zealotS who cannot argue coherently and resort to invectives and name
callings when cornered. Life is fun! ;-)

I'm glad you have something. It can't be enjoyable to live in a head
where you have go keep dodging the truth about your social and
personal irresponsibility and putting children at risk.

And there are many more just like me. Many are parents that got the
message themselves, or professionals that came to it through study
and
research, but what it all boils down to, Doan, is that you are an
immoral anti social narcissistic danger to society, and we are not.

I heard that from the bible-thumping nuts on campus too. We are
going
to hell! Must I repent now? ;-)

I'm an atheist. I have no way of assessing that if you are going to
hell. Nor do I believe there is a hell except inside those that have
been spanked too much. And I wouldn't presume to tell you to repent. I
would tell you to make up your own mind though.

It's morally repugnant but since I have no accurate gauge of just how
much harm you've done (I can't assess the stupidity of the stupid that
might take you seriously) I have to simply tell you to decide.

That is what keeps you here. You have to debate us to maintain your
image, the facade you and your parents created, so that the
underside
of the maggoty dead beast of "spanking" won't be seen.

Is that ALL spankings or just SOME? ;-)

All. They all have some element of decadence. One rotten apple in a
barrel you know.

You have about 90% of the population and you STILL can't stop us
because the truth, even to the delusional Doan's, is still the
truth.

Yup! The truth according to the anti-spanking zealotS! Who need
proof!
;-)

You certainly don't seem to. You ignore it when you get it, and
hair-split your monkey ****.

And slowly but surely and with increasing speed, we are defeating
savage parenting practices.

Fight on! ;-)

Thank you. If you hang around long enough there'll be noone to tell,
"make up your own mind."

The Embry's, the Strauss's, and the ASZ's that come to this ng, the
school officials, the legislators, and the young, raised with
non-pain
based parenting who will become parents themselves, are taking you
down. It just takes time.

Unfortunately, time is what you don't have. My bet is your body will
be
food for maggots before then. :-0
You'd win. I'm pretty old. My wife tells me they couldn't kill me with
a pickaxe though. Some have tried. ...etc.

Does the thought of my death cheer you? That would be something for a
self declared neutral. One more thing to add to the balance of post
that clearly establish you searingly obvious lack of same.

Steer me to your attacks on pro spanking arguments. I must have miss
the thousands you've posted.

Funny thing too. I notice as more and more take on and accept
non-pain
parenting, suddenly those that were once great champions of
spanking
and the right of parents to decide, start talking about how
wonderful
the new child rearing methods are.

Fads come and go. It took communism 70 years to collapse.

Are our granddaughters then going to lose the vote? Should I alert any
African Americans that might not be reading this today to the
likelihood their children will be going back into slavery?
Will the U.S. repeal the personal income tax anytime soon? How about
indentured servitude? And deptor's prison? Which of these is on the
rebound...oh, and in case you hadn't been keeping up, the communists
in Russia have decidedly not gone away.

Where DO you come up with these utterly doofus examples?

Spanking has come and gone to. Some cultures are shocked to see a
child hit or hurt deliberately. The perps are ostracized. Things wax
and wan, but one thing the seems to keep coming back, human freedom
from the inappropriate control of one over the other. Just seems to be
a theme.
anti-spanking zealotry will take about the same.
First ever national law against spanking. 79 I think. I'll be gone
when it collapses like communism. Too bad.

Some, however, will
survive and hang on to the mystical "dream" land on top of a
Malaysian
mountian. :-)
We weren't supposed to fly either, or go faster than a horse could
run. Supposed to stop us from breathing.

Funny eh? The more we get the more we GET.

It's hysterical!

Nervous?

Sometimes people are just being argumentative to score points
with
other
readers of the NG.

There are occasions. For myself, not matter what my intent may
appear
to be, humorous, or not, my intent is quite serious.

Yup! Kane is the poster boy for the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

I consider others here far more knowledgeable and skilled than I. I
see wonderful lists of non-punitive parenting methods posted. I see
sharing of new discoveries, and new research by others than me, and
I
admire them all.

LOL!

The nervous Doan laugh. Yes I can pretty well call it up when I wish
to see it now.

If I were the poster boy it would be an honor, but I don't need it.
I'm very satisfied with my work so far...more especially with you.

And I do enjoy your "company"! ;-)
Expect a long joyful life.


It's almost as gratifying as watching a formerly dangerous teen
leave
treatment with a set of morals and ethics and the capacity to
contribute and know right from wrong without any more of those
social
misfit survivalist sophistries that you so commonly use.

LOL! You are God's gift to trouble-teens. Pat yourself on the back,
Kane!
;-)

I was, I have. And it seems others moreso than myself. Kind of
embarrassing. You ask for evidence. I offer personal testimony, very
personal and important to me and you ridicule it. Is this what you
want proof for?
I always ask myself if I would send the same posting by
private
e-mail.
If not, then I don't send it.

I always ask myself, since this isn't my private E-mail, what
would
be
most effective in the debate to make my argument. My hope, of
course,
since I'm not Doan who would claim he's just supporting the
right
of
the parent to make their own choice whether or not to beat their
child
(and be assured, "beat" is what he and his coterie DO defend
regardless of their protestations otherwise)is that those who
are
spanking but looking for a way to stop will be helped to make
that
decision.

Right, Kane. Ad-hom attacks are your specialty!

I'm good, yes, but by no means a specialist.

And it showed! ;-)

???
Wassamatta, Can't catch up?

I am trying! ;-)
What for? To provide more credibility to your claim of neutrality?

I've never quite figured out the reasoning or morals of those that
just put out a short string of ad hom and don't address the issue
under discussion honestly though. At least once in awhile

LOL! Self-criticism now, Kane?
Of course. Those with healthy egos make use of self criticism quite
unashamedly. However, this time I was considering my lack of
understanding of those that can't debate honestly. This an interest of
yours too?
It's quite simple, all argument aside.

Spankers risk children's safety, lives, and future.

Yup! But that would make 99%+ of humans worldwide.

Yes, there are rather a lot of damaged children.

They tend to grow up with exaggerated xenophobia of many kinds:
homophobia, misogyny, racial bigotry, and religious exclusivity. It
makes for wars, and for brutality to each other among us humans.

Yup! They just don't believe in the "dream" land!
If that were true then you would be saying they believe in their
reactions to homosexuals, women, other races, and that those of other
religions are less than human. Hmmmm. Well, okay.

I've not figured out or found a word to describe the fear of one's
own
children, but the evidence is clear. Some use methods of parenting
that are illegal against adults. I can't assign a meaning to it but
either sadism or a fear response.

I didn't know "adults" need parenting, Kane. Must be my bad English.
:-0

Thank you for the lesson in clarity. I will of course expect an
equally energetic response to the point I was making when I make it
clearer.

Parents do things to their children that are illegal to do to adults.
Parents call it discipline with child. The police will arrest you for
it if it's an adult you do those things to.

Any thoughts? I thought not.

I'm not taken in by the claims of loving their children, and doing
what's best for their children. Perps of domestic violence say the
same. I know THEY believe it, but the evidence is strongly against
those claims being true.

Generalizing again, Kane. :-)

Telling others to "Make up their own mind" again, Doan.

Have you anything to offer in rebuttal but a babble?

Do domestic violence perps not claim, as parents sometimes do, they
did it out of love?
However, if I didn't think they WANTED to love their children, I
wouldn't be here.

You are so altruistic! ;-)

I am, that's true. And the fault in that?

Why is then the
non-spanking cultures just don't survive???

If we have to hurt our children to survive does that not put
survival
in question as a value?

Nope! Without survival, everything else is overated! Our
forefathers
said it best: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For many children I read it as, "Life, just barely, confined in the
sickness of their parents making, and a lifetime of misery."

Until the children have the same protection you and I have against
assault then I'm not terrible in love with what your forefathers said.
They modeled it on our forefathers of course, but it still suck for a
lot of citizens.

I think I'll keep on, since you seem to value it, keeping things in
context and see if children can have there share but volunteer means,
or if that falls by enforcement of the laws.

We deserve to survive, and will survive, when we can learn how to
birth and parent children without deliberate use of pain to control
and "teach" them. And it isn't even hard, unless one is an instinct
only driven animal.

We are human beings. We have to be pragmatic. We have to use our
brain to make the best decision. We can just bow down and let
the "experts" do the thinking for us.

Have shot at overhauling your car engine. After all, it's yours. You
know it best.
Or you could try brain surgery, on yourself please. It's bad enough
you encourage a virtual brain surgery by parents that are not
surgeons.

And the evidence is in the events. We AREN'T SURVIVING. We are
destroying the thin skin of the biosphere we can survive in
unassisted. We are killing each other in droves around the planet.
We
rape and kill our own children. We murder our spouses. We let our
fellows starve. And we populate to the point of resource
exhaustion,
degradation of the food sources, increase in communicable diseases,
with new strains growing and distributed ever faster.

We are surving despite what the chicken-little of the world is
telling us.
So are the dinosaurs...opps. And I'm hard pressed to find the DodoBird
these days. No, Doan, the potentials for risk are way beyond the
casual reliance on self deluding can sustain much longer. That worked
before we had such potentials as we have today.

We have some room, but not much and the lose of wiggle room is
diminishing exponentially. A careful study would show that we live on
the teetering edge of complete annihilation, and have for sometime.
Just in this country we have the capacity, by a simple accident, to
wipe us all out. I'm not real happy with that maintenance crew that is
likely to have 9 out of ever ten on it running around our various
facilities with that kind of potential.
We get little warnings all the time. I'm not going to list them as I
know I could get some visitors if I started doing that. Some folks
already have by way of babbling on Usenet.
So to answer your question, at this time the non-spanking cultures
(those die with the people...as I've never found a non-spanking
culture that disappeared as such by going to spanking as a
parenting
practice) don't survive, possibly, because we the spanking ones
surround them.

You said yourself that we outnumber them. 90+% spank on this
planet.

So spanking cultures are better adapted.

If you say so. I don't see raw survival as a predictor of the future
survival. It could mean we were just lucky. And given the degradation
of the environment (and this isn't about tree hugging) things are not
boding well. I once thought we could get rid of nuclear energy before
it killed us. I was young and underestimated the hubris of man.
It's those spanked kids grown up and never developed beyond the
foolish belief in their immortality. That's way people who see death
coming at them swiftly say the their language equivalent of our
"****!"

It means "I was wrong, I CAN die." Typical "spanked child" neurosis
self protection. They can't look death in the face and understand that
behaviors DO have consequences. They spent their childhoods focused on
the artificial consequences laid on by parents. Hence, out of touch
with reality.
They didn't take the "risk",

So taking the risk of spanking our children will improve the odds
of
our survival?

If we were to follow the logic of your "observation" based research!
That isn't what I observed.

Am I reading you correctly?

Yup!

I wouldn't, as you do, want to put words or meanings into another's
statement or claim, than they intend.

So:

Is spanking our children likely to improve or diminish the odds for
survival?
Where in the World is Doan?

Are we, for survival, required to spank our children?
Where in the World is Doan?

While I deplore that you have once again revealed your character by
diversion from the question, "where is the line between spanking
and
abuse" I celebrate that you have introduced a truly important
question
to the mix yourself.

What a study that would be. Now if we could get half the planet's
people to be non-spankers (I'd settle for a third before I
die...but
won't make it of course) we could have a really objective research
project.

We could find enough non-spankers, and break them down into
categories, punitive alternatives to spanking, non-punitive
alternatives, laizzefaire, etc.

We only have to look at cultures that survived! ;-)
What for, if you are correct. It would not be worth the looking.
Cockaroaches rule? Naw, not for me.
Doan
snip....my what a lot of my claims you chose not to
answer...hmmmmm?

Kane

Flushed! ;-)

Nooooooo.... Finally embarrassed? ):_

Doan

Kane

On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:11:06 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:40:41 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:07:43 +1300, "ChrisScaife"
wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...


On 4 Dec 2003, Greg Hanson wrote:

Doan: It's not the first time that I've seen
these ultraliberal types makes grunting noises
about how terrible human beings are.

We ARE discussing "beating" of children.

Not according to the Doan coterie. We are discussing "spanking"
and
if
you can't determing the difference between spanking and beating,
according to them, you are a logic impaired Anti Spanking
Zealot,
ASZ.

True! Just ask the social science researchers if they their
studies
was
on spanking or "beating"

I don't need to ask.

I know! You alredy "greased your butt"! ;-)

As I said below and you childishly attempted to divert from......

Then you are accusing yourself of being childish! THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS!

They were of neither.

Why?

I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I
don't need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that
explained.

Childish, Kane! ;-)

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by
the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither". What
logic!

Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither" was
exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.

What's that again? IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH? :-)

I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I
admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult for
you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is
obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the
"reasonable person."

I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said "neither".
Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking". Please show me
how is that proper English???

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive
terms.

LOL! They are not stupid!

All of "they" or some of "they?" That thing with plurals is certainly
a challenge for you.

ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are. Sound like the weather
in Colorado must have freezed your brain. Try sunny California! :-)

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines"
parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear,
humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile
hall with the children of families that don't use pain parenting?

Where do you get that?

Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to
rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming more
and more directed away from punishment models?

So juvenile hall is NOT punishment???

And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted to
you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply
denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.

Show me the data. I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN!

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on
your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be, as
it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite
aware
of the limits of social science studies.

You are wising up! Good!

No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I'm not doing
well, but I have a great deal of persistence.

But you admitted to being stupid! ;-)

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood logical
defenses and arguments.

I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of
invectives,
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)

The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone
that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.

I know, including lying!

Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom
and putdowns you use?

ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like you
and Steve. You know, let you taste your own ****s! ;-)

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other than
in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest answer
to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend
there
is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to
decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what
"reasonable"
doublt is?

Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for
others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking them.

What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?

That's why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor charges
being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct.

My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that
backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and
admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under consideration....

Weasel words again. Are you so dishonest??? ;-)

....is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by
choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand,
with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about spanking."

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

No. You just tried to weasel! ;-)

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

You should take your own advice!

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their choice.

Absolutely!

And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on where
I'm going.

"life" or "live"? You going to the seventh plant!


The difference between us is that you lack the morals and
conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)

For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

What?

The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or abuse
except by their EFFECTS.

Exactly! How else?

If you have found otherwise I'd be most pleased to be advised. I have
done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The Question in
any statute or policy I've uncovered.

Post one and we will discuss. If you are that stupid then please don't
that others are too. :-)

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes,
that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between "reasonable
force" and "excessive force".

And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot refuse
to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force" and
be hired and retained as a LEO.

Really??? Show me!

I understand they also face some of the same consequential incentives
that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect, prisoner,
or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child would
likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities,
from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and
demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and
imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.

LOL! Show me where a parent can shoot a child and defend it as
"reasonable force"!

Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own
mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?

And they can get away with it???

I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers, but
they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most of
the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly
legal and have been for some time in all but one state.

And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly
protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm and
no in parental disciplining.

Same with the police use of "reasonable force". And what percentage of
parents misuse force, Kane? 1%, 5%, 10%???

So tell us, Doan...if everyone else in the world you keep bringing up
cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their child,
and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to "do
not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that answer
The Question?

Because most parents have common sense! And they have proven through
out history that they did a good job! Are you suggesting they must
get a license before they can have kids???

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they would
wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Who are they?

Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on The
Question.

There hundreds of book on parenting the last time I was at a bookstore.
Are you suggesting that most parents are stupid?

And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?

Parents?

The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof
though.

I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and it
is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff, and
legislatures spend considerable time on the problem....that parents
can simply ignore...as they so often do with your encouragement by
distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and the
posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting.

So parents are so stupid that cannot be trusted to make up their own
mind???

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well as
DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and
spanking.

Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?

I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for you
as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The
Question.

I have already looked up the statistics, Kane. You are refusing to show
me the data because that woudld prove that you are LYING!


If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access.

I have. IT IS FAR LESS THAN 1%!!!

Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse
after injuring their child, but I don't think anyone here would, even
your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so.

Excuse are easy to make, Kane! You are stupid to believe their veracity,
are you? What excuse do they use to justify neglecting their children?
That is what make up most of the child-abuse cases, Kane!

It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental
processing...to excuse bad behavior.
In other words, the spanked (90+%) of the population, has learned to
lie very well to protect themselves from the consequences of their
actions.

The spanked LIE? ALL of THEM??? And the "never-spanked" like you don't
lie, right? ;-)

You are a prime example.

LOL! Do you lie? ;-)

And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do you
see
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at Sweden
before and after 1979?

If you wish to go down that road please do, but know at the end of the
long evasive trail, I will be waiting here with The Question.

You can't handle the truth! :-)


It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails on
the
incidence of abuse.

Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning
spanking?

I cannot say, and neither can you, but I can tell you that immediately
there was huge increase in the reporting of child abuse....and
services rendered to child and family. The purpose was not to reduce
the reporting of child abuse, but the incidence of it in the future.

Show me the data!

And what are we seeing?

Dr. Durant explains it well:
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm

Why don't you post the actual study instead of a "FILTERED" version
from a anti-spanking site, Kane? You do know how to think for yourself,
don't you?

"Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse
The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily based
on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case that
reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since the
1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the
issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to
rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied to
shifts in public awareness. "


Then for a lesson in "doublethink" about as good as I've run across in
my lifetime, even better than your own, try reading this:

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html


Are you this devious? Where did it say that "reporting rates" is the
cause of the increase?

"Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal punishment
(hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas the
child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item
showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later (1985)
American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey concluded
that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to this
measure."

A complete denial of the fact that reporting something isn't the doing
of that thing. And later, the passive voice reporting that death rates
for children, always low in Sweden, have not changed..in other words
the claim that not spanking was going to be bad for Sweden didn't
materialize.

Are you reading the same thing that I am reading?

"Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative
comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the average of
the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was 49%
higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates (Larzelere,
1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original findings
were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a
temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in Sweden to
disciplining children without the use of spanking."

All they got was
more attention to the already severe problem with
UNREPORTED child abuse. Talk with older swedes about parenting methods
of the past. They were an equal too if not the surpassers of the
Germans.

Speculation again, Kane!

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the
bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT???

That was MY point, Doan. Regressive fallacy number 4.032. Don't you
ever improve your ploy repertoire. You are so easy to spot.

My point was that parents lie about their "spanking" and call it that
when it is in fact abusive and damaging to the child. Do you think
that at any point in time from the birth of their child to the moment
they were nailed by CPS they told anyone the truth about their
"spanking" practices?

And they will tell you the truth if you banned spanking? How about
the "he fell" excuse? Have you heard that?

And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?

I don't recall saying that, but I suspect the incidence of child
abuse, were the use of CP outlawed, would result over time as people
learned other methods of parenting....OR LOST THEIR children to those
that do use non pain parenting, YES, the that kind of abuse would
reduce.

Any evidence of that in, not just Sweden, but any of the other countries
that banned spanking??? Come on, Kane. Here is your chance to prove
your assertion. Here is your chance to convince me and others! DON'T
BLOW IT!

Using the absolute, "stop" of course, is your silly attempt to one
action fiddle the language.

I din't say it in the absolute!

I don't think you can support your implication that I WANT to ban
spanking. I consider it a second best solution to the voluntary
reduction by parents who will stop listening to their fear filled
childhood denial, and to you and your encouragement to spank.

The best way is to prove to them that the non-cp alternatives are
effective and better. I encourage parents to make up their own
mind. You are lying when you said I encourage parents to spank!
STOP LYING!

On the other hand I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, and the
fastest progress, just as we saw with women's suffrage and the civil
right movement, may well lie with a change in the law. It seems to be
the case in the countries that have outlawed CP.

I am saddened, but not ashamed that I could be wrong. I wish it were
otherwise, and loving parents didn't themselves have to be threatened
to awareness...but if that's what it takes I'll be able to take a
break and end my reasoned appeals to conscience.

Conscience, and its development, often being the first casualty of
pain parenting.

This is one of the self admitted "stupid" things I do. I trust parents
to a far greater degree than they warrant by the evidence of their
behavior.

SO YOU DON'T TRUST PARENTS???

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or
the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her on
the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop crying
so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've
heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry, I
don't
see the logic, Kane.

No, I was not discussing that. Are you using regression or aggression
logical fallacies today? I am explaining why I know that parents, in
answer to YOUR diverting question, do NOT know how to limit themselves
in many instances.

You are using a small number of parents who abused their kids and
generalize that to the population at large. That is a fallacy!

You may be too short, in morals, metaphorically speaking, to see over
the thickets along your diverted argument, but I am not. We are still
talking about The Question.

Oops! Resorting to ad-hom again. Do you look at yourself in the mirror
yet? ;-)

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million reports
of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate
half
are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child
physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.

Why would you make such a demand?

Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about The
Question.

What number have you provided to prove your claim that crime is down
because we are spanking less???

As to your request for citation:

I have contacted abcnews and advised them that you have uncovered
malfeasance in their "fact checker" staff. Apparently your prompt
attention to this matter and your extensive research has shown how off
the mark they are in quoting federal stats that must surely be wrong.
They have our email addy and no doubt will contact you for your
expertise. There may be some money in it, who knows.

And I confess to my error...I had forgotten that the data from 5 years
ago has changed considerably of this time. There the number of abuse
reports you'll find below:
LOL! So you ASS U ME that everything by the news media is the TRUTH????
Everheard of the Jessica Lynch story?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...use010402.html
"Children's advocates also suspect that the federal statistics
released today miss many instances of abuse. The federal estimate is
based on nearly 3 million reports that were referred to local child
welfare authorities, just over 60 percent of which were investigated,
yielding the 826,000 confirmed cases "

And notice the number of confirmed cases. And about half of all cases
are neglect, leaving the remainder abuse.

Oops! Trying one of your devious trick again,, Kane?

"Almost three-fifths of all victims suffered some sort of neglect, while
more than one-fifth suffered physical abuse, and more than one in 10 were
sexually abused."

ARE YOU HAVING PROBLEM READING, KANE????


Are you calling all the posters that have posted
that here for years
liars? Or are you just unable to read? Our own Plant-life
cross-posts
such things and has for years.

Yup! Just as you did now. They, mostly, yapped with no supporting
evidence!

Yeah, right.

AND I JUST PROVED IT WITH THE DATA YOU PROVIDED!

A google on ["child abuse" reports+million] would turn up hundreds
of
such postings. If you actually believed it to be untrue you'd have
happily cranked up the actual number yourself and posted it to
refute
me.

Google is not the authorative source, Kane. That is the problem with
the Internet. You have to be very careful about the information you
see on the Internet.

Have you advised The Plant, and gotten in touch with the DOJ, the FBI,
and other government sources to let them know they lack credibility by
posting to the Internet?

Twisting my words again, Kane?

I've already net abcnews know of your concern.

Instead you make demands.

I have no right to demand you to back up your claim, Kane?

Not if the burden of proof is yours and you just skinned out of it on
one issue to another that doesn't really matter to the discussion.

IS that why you just lied about it?

You ask me to prove things that are NOT on the topic we were
discussing. You will grab any response I make to your failure to
respond to The Question, this one or others in the past, and run with
that to avoid responding

I have responded to your QUESTION!

It's your MO and you should know by now how laughable it as it see you
disappear up your own asshole every time you do it. Many let you get
away with it. Even I have for the sake of my intent. And I will in the
future, but don't be alarmed at the occasional surprise waiting for
you along your own trail of deceit.

The only thing in "own asshol" is YOU and I thought I wiped it clean
already! ;-)

This wasn't a reasonable request by a reasonable man, it was a
school
yard ploy by a child that knows he can't defend his naughty
behavior.

You are acting like a child, Kane. You are pulling a "tantrum" so
that
you can avoid answering my question. STOP IT!

That ploy has dried up, Doan. No one is diverted by it. All this is an
attempt to avoid the inevitable. That you are a proven liar. That you
are morally bankrupt and deceitful in your claims and stated
neutrality on parents making up their own mind. And you entertain
yourself with you pseudo scientific demands for proof of everything.
And, you might notice, I did answer your question, and it canned your
silly ass, as I do just about every time you stick it out there for
everyone to see.
And what percentage is that of the child
population? 1%, 0.5%, or 0.25%? You tell me, Kane.

I might if you told me the point of your asking?

To see the big-picture!

Sorry. On some matters you will have to be your own teacher. I am paid
as part of my work to do some research. I'm not doing it for you for
free.

IOW, you have nothing to support your claim. ALL YOU CAN DO IS LIE!

And there is no use in the stat in consideration of our debate over
The Question, you have not answered as yet.

I already have!

When you can show a relevance to The Question and answering it...and
that is all, I might consider assisting you. I don't have to support
my asking The Question. You have to answer or live with the obvious
outcome of your failure to do so.

All of your diversions are NOT going to help you in this one Doan. Not
one, not any, not even with a Whore's help, and the anxious Twittering
of A Plant.

Getting desperate, Kane? ;-)

Clarify.

Already did!

No, asking a question over again isn't "clarifying." What do you wish
the information for in the light of coming to an answer to the
question? If you need data to answer the question, then that is YOUR
problem. I only ask it. I don't answer it.

You claimed something without supporting data. I asked for proof!

I fail to see the connection to the percentage of children from the
population and my claim that millions of child abuse reports are
taken
each year by police and CPS.

Then you are really stupid as you admitted. ;-) You claimed that
about
half of them are for spanking.

Please show were I said that. I said, "abuse" which is pretty common
knowledge. Roughly half the reports that are substantiated are for
neglect the remainder for abuse.

WHICH IS A LIE! AND I HAVE PROVEN SO ABOVE!

You showed me no data to support such
a claim!

Because it is not really relevant to The Question. I do not have to
defend the asking of a question. You have to make up your own mind
whether or not to answer it and how, and live with the result of YOUR
decision.

I have already answered your question over and over and over! You have
not answered mine!

Now you are weasling by changing that claim to "millions of
child abuse reports". Are you always this dishonest, Kane?

Me and abcnews and the federal authorities.

No, just YOU!

I believe the US DHHS keeps such data. You are welcome to go there and
look, for you see YOU are or should be asking for information so you
CAN answer the question, and instead you asking ME to provide you the
data to either answer the question, or as I suspect R R R, to divert
from answering The Question.

Already have!

Do you wish to use the data (which I have willingly given to you upon
asking...as you can see) to answer the question, or to claim that The
Question isn't a relevant question at all?

Already answered the question and ALREADY PROVED THAT YOU LIED!

And finally, what has this particular data got to do with either?

You brought it up, did you not?

If I was only ONE parent asking in behalf on ONE child who might or
might not get spanked it would be relevant in this newsgroup, where
the experts on spanking, defending spanking, supporting others right
to spank or not, to ask such a question.

Where else could I possibly go that I haven't already gone to ask it?
I've asked policy, statute, mental health professionals, and parents
who spank, and so far, not a one has had a definitive answer that I
feel safe using to spank my child. Hence, I cannot decide.

Then don't!

I have had to wait low these many years while my children grew up.
What a lose for them and me.
And finally, before you tell me why, please pose an argument. You
may
mark from this day forward I don't respond to demands, even if
seemingly reasonable, if you conceal your premise and or argument.

LOL! Now you are making demands of me when I can't make demands of
yout!
"Please" is a demand? A statement that I don't respond further, unless
I wish of course, to YOUR demands, is a demand?

What grammar rules do you have in your native language?

You should ask yourself that.

You are showing the logic of an anti-spanking zealotS, Kane. ;-)
Yes. Powerful, isn't it. Stopped you dead in your tracks, then left
you spinning a diminishing spiral, never catching your tail, and
diving right up your own asshole with proof after proof, damning
statement after statement of your moral qualities, you intelligence,
your logic, your developmental age, and finally, your proof that
spanking parenting works....yourself.

LOL!

Out of context isn't going to work for you...at least not with me.
You
have only the they unwary to play with any more, Doan.

You are weaseling, Kane!
How so, Doan? That I don't care to answer idle diversions by you, or
is it frantic diversions?
Well, unless I fancy to.
We who know you have wearied of your silliness.

Can't argue anymore and have to resort to ad-hom attacks, Kane? ;-)

"You are weaseling, Kane!"
If you say so, Doan.

I SAY SO!

Gotto go now. I'll be back later for the rest! ;-)

Doan

I have seen my own son covered in bruises, administered by his
mother
and/or
her lover who is a professional martial arts expert.

If they are the legal caregives and one is the bio parent giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this
country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of
abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.

The son has "NO defense"!!! The logic of Kane! Needs I say more?
;-)

You didn't bother to read. I'll re-post by cut and paste from
above.

Read and rephrase your comment (I see you forgot a ? After the !!!)
for clarity. It makes no sense unless I assume you didn't read and
understand:

LOL!
Apparently you are doing that embarrassed giggle thingie.

(Edited for spelling correction)
"
If they are the legal care-givers and one is the bio parent
giving
permission then your son has virtually NO defense in this
country.
Unless you can prove the bruises fall within the guidelines of
abuse
statutes in your state he will just have to continue to take it.
"
Notice the "guidelines of abuse statutes in your state?"

Do you read what you write??? Why are saying the son has "no
defense"?
ARE THEY CHARGING THE SON WITH A CRIME???

No. None at all. Is that your tail I see stickin' out your butt?

There is more than one kind of "defense." If I am too small for you,
you big brute you, and you attack me, I have no physical defense. If
there is no statute that protects me I am undefended by the law, then
I am without "defense."

Is their no limit to the amount of embarrassment you can stand?

Are you then, without defense?

You really should pay me for lessons in both English and logic.

THAT is what these people stand for that you think are just
scoring
points, as you say below.

What "people"? Anybody defending child abuse here????

Yes. The Plant. Greegor the Whore, and Doan the Duplicitous. Read
on
and it will become clear.

You are lying! I havev'nt seen anyone defending child abuse here.

Then you haven't been reading here. And no, this time I'm not googling
for you. Hit on the name in any addy, as you very well know how to do,
and see for yourself. Try "hangup" on The Plant, and give a glim to
what Greegor thinks is discipline for an act that virtually every
child has experienced as a failure to control body function.

You don't call The Plant in It's vicious attack on children by
defending the actions of parent who injure them. I'd say that will do
for a "defending child abuse" wouldn't you? Or do you think that
because know and then they use lying weasel tactics similar to yours
and state, "I'm against child abuse" they really are?

Nixon comes to mind.

I, and I know you won't believe it, am NOT, decidedly NOT,
scoring
points as an objective. Don't mind getting a laugh now and then,
but I
am deadly serious about putting and end for all time to the
barbaric
practice of punishing children.

Yup! Kane is going to set all the children in juvenile halls
FREE!
;-)

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to work to reduce the
numbers
going in, and the numbers coming out who have healed from the
brutality of their parents that ended in them being incarcerated.

LOL! And thought you are for "not punishing" children! At first, I
was applauding you for being consistent, now you even lose that!

And what in the paragraph or anything I've written would draw you or
anyone else to conclude I'm in favor of punishing juveniles?

Society has to protect itself by separating the dangerous from the
population. While that may have the intent of punishment to some, to
me, especially for juveniles I see it as an opportunity for society to
reform that person or child from the damage you hold some
responsibility for, Doan.
And I'm going to do it, by influence now...since I'm not personally
engaged in juvenile work any longer....through the people I trained
to
use supportive non-pain based methods of therapy.

And keeping them juvenile halls is "non-pain" based????
It is consequence based. When I refer, as anyone that can read and
understand and has no lying agenda, to "pain based parenting" I am not
suggesting an end to natural consequences. It would be impossible to
isolate a child from consequence that are by nature.

One force of nature is the collective we call society. It may punish.
I can't stop that. But I can influence it if I think something works
better. I have had considerable success.

Do you think the debate by arguing that because something is done a
lot makes it right, or that I approve because I don't personally stop
it?

Interesting approach. You may become the author of a new logical
fallacy one day if you keep up your experimenting here.
Children that have been spanked are usually experts as dealing with
and even using aversive techniques. I don't want the to continue
to
practice avoidance over development of conscience, nor the more
sophisticated threat and pain on others their parents began
instructing them in.

You still haven't told me what the recidivism rate before and after
you were "involved". ;-)
It was in a prior post and you know it. And it isn't relevant to The
Question. Yours now is a return to the spin and dive tactic you are
over using. Can't you come up with some new things.

You can label it "stupid neurotic ultraliberal type BS grunting
noises",

Sure you do, if you have completely run out of argument,
logical,
intelligent, fact based argument, for what CANNOT be argued.
Doan
knows that and has been playing weasel for years with it.

LOL! I have never called anyone "stupid neurotic ultraliberal
type
BS grunting noises"

Then you admit to being part of the crowd I refer to that one
member
of did. Did you then disagree with your new butt buddy, Greegor the
Whore?

Oops! More insults from Kane! What a weasel! ;-)

"What a weasel!"

So, Doan, do you admit to being a willing associate of Greegor the
Whore knowing full well what he has been up to for the past three
years?

It's an easy question...not a weasel word in it. Can I count on a like
response?

You are known by the company you keep, unfair as that might be.
Thank
you.

Childish!

No, actually my old granny said that, and if you called her childish
she'd laugh for days over it.
You are the child here, and you can be sure others are seeing clearly,
even if they might have missed it before.

Personally I blush at the thought I actually, upon first read of a
post of yours, thought you might actually be a serious honest debater.
Now I find you are simply a master.
but I have seen Kane called other women "smelly-****"!

Unless you have met the subject of my epitaph, you cannot with
assurance claim I called a
"Women" a "smelly-****." In fact, even if It dresses as a women,
says
It's a women, you still can't say with conviction....and I suspect
you
don't KNOW It's a women at all, unless you have been down sucking
at
that smelly ****.

Losing it, Kane??? Remember that you were once crawled out of a
"smelly-****"! ;-)

I am NOT your brother, thank you very much.

I called a poster I refer to as The Plant, and respectfully assign
lovely plant names to, a "smelly ****."

Yup! I see that you always resort to name-calling when you ran out
of anything logical to say. Did your parents taught you that? ;-)

Odd, I don't "always" do anything, as it's impossible to do so. Did
you talk with yours about being spanked so much and the trouble it's
giving you know with your moral choices.
}| :}

It richly deserved that...though I apologize to any women her for
that
sexist choice. But then I did say "smelly." That surely doesn't
apply
to all women.

So which women don't have "smelly-****", Kane? Have you asked you
mom?
;-)

Obviously you didn't have to ask yours. {;-}

He thinks putting the responsibility for the actions of the
parent
on
the parent, ignoring that without restraints children at taking
the
beatings YOUR child is getting, absolves him of any blame.

ABSOLUTELY!

Thank you. Proof of your dysfunctional conscience. The failure, so
often seen in pain parented children, to develop the important
characteristic of human beings, empathy into conscience.

Great logic, Kane! I am to blame for the evils in this world???

No, just that part you've influenced, then after the centuries pass,
the growing influence, or the waning influence (we hope the latter).
We all have some responsibility.

Your inability to see that speaks volume to your character, or lack
thereof.

I have no responsibility for your child.

Another clear indicator. Humans, being social animals by evolution
and
contemporary evidence of their desire to clump into packs...even
their
driving habits show it on the freeways.....have by default
responsibility for each other.

I have empathy for other beings and resposibility for others in my
charge but I surely don't have any responsibility for your child!

Please describe empathy as YOU experience it. Many think they are
empathetic when they are in fact are feeling sympathy. There is a
world of qualitative difference. I have never seen anyone with a well
developed sense of empathy that could stand viewing what you do here
in these ngs and respond as you do...with denial of the antics of a
Plant, or buddying up to a Greegor.

No those with the capacity for actual empathy would go into overload.

Spanked children are at high risk of developmental dysfunction
concerning empathy, conscience. The latent capacity, seen in babies
that cry at the sound or sight of other babies crying, can be pretty
extinguished by just a few things in their early experience, an nearly
always extinguished if they are pain parented.

What I find when I talk with pain parenters about this is a complete
denial, rather like hysterical blindness....they cannot discuss it
rationally and calmly, the exhibit fear as though they are being
attacked. I suspect there is a causal chain from generation to
generation in this matter. Children raised by gentle parents tend to
have higher level development of conscience, even if they were from
families that spanked but were exposed by adoption or other change in
caretakers to gentle parenting.

There is hope Doan, even for you.

The only ones that exhibit signs of NOT feeling some responsibility
for other human beings are those that are in that spectrum of
socio-pathology of those that have dysfunctions of conscience, and
the
latent empathy that normal humans are born with.

Latent empathy, seen as automatic responses in very young infants
(crying when others cry, etc.) can be developed or it can be
retarded
by either neglect to stimulate it, or by suppression of it because
of
pain and fear.

The latter two can be naturally occurring, as in a long illness, or
continuous painful stimulation as in war or famine or other
stressors,
or by parental handling and treatment of the child.

The latter is the most prevalent in our world.

Doan is an example. Though I cannot say, beyond his admission that
he
was pain parented, he said he was spanked by his parents, which
conditions cause the atrophy of his conscience.

If this is true than 99% of all human beings since the beginning of
time
has no conscience??? You are being ridiculous!

I am glad that you took the time to read clear through my discussion
of this issue before answering. It shows there is hope. You didn't
interrupt from your set of usual diversions.

But I invite you to read history and ask YOURSELF that question
objectively. Do you think that the majority DID have consciences that
were very well developed?

And please, lay off the absolutes in your questions. They are a dead
giveaway of the rhetorical nature of your statement.

We are deceived often by surface characteristics, especially if we
have some problems with our own consciences. We think everyone is
Okay, because, after all they are like us and WE are okay.

You can hear the exact same think on death row. A complete loss of
connection to a sense of responsibility. A few there, knowing they
will die at the whim of the people, start to wake up but I tend not to
trust jail house conversions much.

Cons can get very good at faking conscience...and you, Doan. Well,
think about it.
That is why I am
not telling you or any other parent how to parent!

Which goes to my claim that you lack the capacity, even the
realization of it's existence, of empathy. In =91Society,' including
even the meaning of its name, one DOES have a sense of
responsibility
for other members of that group...child or adult humans.

Empathy is difference from responsibilitly, Kane. I can feel sorry
for
you but I can not be respsonsible for you!
Ah, the tip off. One does NOT feel sorry as a part of or all of
empathy. YOU don't know what empathy is and you have NOT experienced
it.

And empathy is NOT about thinking or feeling responsible for someone
else, other than it can trigger such responses. In fact it so very
often does do that.

A completely empathetic person would, of course, be immobilized, so we
have to have our judgement come in and modify, leaven if you will,
empathy. But some lack it.

We can even have it for animals, even for anything in existence.
But
to not have it for children?

Huh??? And I thought that I said parents are responsible for their
own children!

Of course they are. Now parse carefully.

That does not in a moral society preclude others responsibility for
children of others.

We are not solitary predators, and as far as I know, except for a few
birds or some reptiles, there are no precedents for your belief if I
understand it, except in sociopathology.

Even herbivores take over parenting for each other, sure sign of an
empathetic response. They feel what the other's in their pack or herd
feel. Literately from sensed cues.

Humans have it to a considerable degree. Our living style shows it's
presence. We can even live like hive creatures...witness the Hakka, a
Chinese ethnic group, the originators of the Condominium.

But being solitary is rare for us and often unhealthy.

We do hold some responsibility for our fellows.

Tsk.

This is the same as leaving it up to bank robbers whether or not
killing the customers during a robbery is the best course of
action.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Great logic!

It wasn't an offering of logic. It was a metaphor. Metaphor's do
not
require logic to serve their intent. It is to trigger some logical
reasonable response in this case.

Metaphor without logic is called "false analogy".
The logic rests in its pattern matching to the circumstances under
consideration.
And internally to the elements of itself.
My metaphor stands as logical both internally and externally as to
intent.

It cann't trigger
some logical response if it is itself illogical!
That is correct. However if it is logical and you cannot see the
pattern similarity between the metaphor and what it addresses then
something is blocking it triggering in you the desired effect.

You didn't get it.

No!

I know. It wasn't a question. No question mark.


I failed.

No, you just lack logic!

That totally lacks logic. If I failed by lack of logic, that is a
failure. If I failed because you didn't get it, then that is a
failure.

If you GOT it, you could not answer "No!" as I'm quoting you from
above. Then the correct answer, the honest, non diversionary,
misleading tail disappearing up your own asshole answer would be,
"Yes, you lack logic!"

This should, of you are objective and honest and not impaired by
childhood trauma disrupting your development, be perfectly clear and
logical to you. It wasn't, hence, logically I doubt your capacity for
logic or objectivity or accuracy...and I fear for your honesty.
The victims still suffer, and Doan wants you to think he has no
responsibilty morally for that.

Yup, Kane! Robbers kill their victims because of me!!!

You and our conscience and your claims do not belong in the
metaphor.
You and your claims and your conscience SHOULD however be in the
point
of the metaphor. A sense of social responsibility for children.

It is illogical! How am I resposible for the action of the robbers?

If you know they are making a choice to rob, and you know that back
robbers sometimes kill bystanders or victims, and you respond to them
by saying, "make up your own mind" you are responsible.

If you are arguing in a semantic gneme then no, you are not, but if
you are arguing morally, you ARE most certainly. Your only excuse
would be to save your own hide if you knew they would kill you for
arguing with them.

I give you that out in your not arguing with parents against
spanking...they might kill you.
but people who condone that kind of human behaviour will
never
get MY respect! He has no worry about that. As you say, he
is
a point scorer, not a morally fit person. He doesn't care. That
is
the result of spankings he received as a child and cannot bear
to
hold his parents responsible for. Kane is talking about
morality! Yikes! ;-)

I presume you wish to continue. Say stop whenever you wish. This is
just a check. My own conscience requires that I be aware of those I
interact with, and the media limits me. I'm accustomed to body
language, nuances in tone of voice, pacing of speech, etc.

And your conscience told you to call other women "smelly-****"???

Oh yes, in this particular instance (notice I do not call all women
that, and recently in fact I posted a general apology to three or four
ngs to women that might be readers) it as a very restrained response
to a Tree that regularly posts apologies and defenses for people, even
churches, that brutally abuse children.

Am I supposed to continue to be reasonable with such things, after
they have gone on for years?

Which of us, you NOT confronting it over such defenses of abuse, or
I...confronting repeatedly, has the higher moral ground?

Between us, you who claims his is not responsible if some parent, with
his implicit and explicit support by way of saying "make up your own
mind" and posting in favor of spanking and against non-punitive
parenting, and myself, who urges people to find other means than pain
rather than risk harm to child child, who holds the moral high ground?

What is your purpose in being here posting to this ng. I think you've
said before, but I'm more interested in now, with the possibility you
have matured over time.

Words are what we use, so words are what I have to ask for to
govern
my participation.

But shouldn't it be used with logic?

Yes. Why do you use them for so much else?

He thinks they taught him something.

How do you know that I think, Kane? ;-)

I don't. I do know what you write. I presume you were thinking when
you wrote them. I most likely should have said "claims" rather than
"thinks."

Thank you for the English lesson. Let us hope one day the pupil
will
surpass the master.

LOL! And I thought you don't have "superiority" complex!

Odd, I just suggested that you could surpass me, Luke.



I agree when it comes to needless slaughter of
dolphins or higher primates, but these types
generally apply these comments in stupid ways.

The neurotic ultraliberals actually think that
by chattering a whole bunch, and patting each
other on the back, their BS is "the truth"!

The truth is that this sort of debate is
more typical of a few petulant 17 year olds
who think they have it all figured out.

I would suggest to you, Doan, to let them
prattle on about their gibberish and let
them delude each other rather than lend them
credence by even debating with them on
such an incredibly stupid premise/whine.

Just LET THEM go walking out over the edge
of the cliff with their raging cultic views.


I have been on this newsgroup for a while now.
I know how to deal with them. The more they
post publicly the better it is for others to
see their true character. Sit back an enjoy
the spectacles! :-)

I have not been on this NG much.
Too me it seems that a lot of heated debate here is due to
misunderstanding.

On the contrary. We understand the opponents position very well
indeed. The opponents of ASZs can't define anything about
spanking
wihtout weales words, incomprehensible instence on US making the
definition we don't have to make because WE chose NOT to spank
children.

And you are welcome to make your own choice!

I know. And those in my society with a conscience, and the
intelligence and mental development to understand by and use cause
and
effect reasoning objectively, are heavily invested in my choice.

You haven't show that here!

That is an opinion, a judgement. It is not based in an objective view.

If I have failed to show it by your judgement it may well be your
judgement is faulty.

They tend to insist on being heard before I have a chance to
degrade
society with my abused children.

Why would you abuse your children? Are you sick???

As I have been pointing out, childish diversions.
To break a less important statement and use it for comedy is fun and
certainly excusable and breaks up the monotony. To do so to try and
divert from a valid question is not comedy.

Why do you have a
problem with other people making their own choice?

Because I DO have the capacity for analytical thinking and can
apply
it to social and political issues. Spanking is one, hence I'm
invested
in that issue. I actually care about how children are prepared for
and
enter society. I worked at and trained others that work at one of
the
many way-stations that children in pain parenting families stopped
at.

And you know their children better than 90%+ of the parents???

Never made that claim. And we've been through this many times. I am
not concerned with knowing better than 90+% of the parents. Only with
the potentially abusive ones. I'd like the 90+% to consider other
alternative than the high risk one of using pain to parent.

They may ignore me if they wish. I nevertheless feel both a personal
responsibility about the pain and injury of the children and a social
responsibility considering what I see around me in the world I
consider a very strong causal likelihood came from childhood
experiences.

I don't like the world in some of its parts that humans occupy. I
don't like the behaviors of some humans. I believe they have the
potential, and are capable of destroying humanity, possibly the entire
planet completely. I believe you are one of them.
I would have rather been unemployed.

But then, long before I had those experiences, from about age 19, I
was acutely aware this world was not a safe place and the people in
it
tended to be the most pervasive of dangerous elements. Drop me in a
remote desert or forested mountains and I'll sleep soundly with no
worries. The dangers are predictable and very manageable. Drop me
in a
city and I know perfectly well there is considerable
unpredictability
from that demographic that have been raised with pain parenting.

IOW, you can't deal with reality.

It is interesting to see a claim an accusation but no support. Please
be specific. What in that proceeding paragraph suggests I can't deal
with reality?

Instead, you "dreamed" of a society
on the top of a Malaysian mountain.. :-)

I'm not sure of your reference. I was talking about relative feelings
of safety. I was not talking about anyone else, and I know my own
senses and feelings. I simply said that I feel safer in those places
than I do in many cities. In fact I've found none that I can feel as
safe in as I do in desert and mountain remoteness. I live in one of
those. I grew up in both settings, and cities. I have the ability to
make the comparisons.
What is the point of your attack?

I had childhood friends that were themselves not well behaved, in
this
sense of being dangerous to others. I know how they were parented.
Their judgement is poor, and they lack a developed conscience. I
had a
very well developed conscience at 11 or 12.

And you sure showed your conscience here, "nver-spanked" boy! ;--)

Why are you so invested in finding out if I was spanked or not? This
particular bit of ad hom you indulge in is loaded with hostility and
anxiety I would guess.

I think that going after people that would harm children and
attempting reform and rehabilitation is very moral and an indicator of
a well developed conscience.

Compared to "let them make up their own minds" it stands out as such.

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in
the
archives they have either described spanking very different and
or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they
wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.

I and many people have examined the risks

Citations please.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)
I'm sorry but this will not do. You can't post a peer review that
refutes a study and keep claiming to use this study to refute. It's a
compromised citation now.

Any use of it is equally compromised. Your medical peer review did
that for you.

By the way, I've always found cross discipline reviews highly suspect
on the grounds that it entirely too simple to refute someone's
findings by using YOUR disciplines criteria to refute rather than the
criteria of the source.

I'm interested much more, and tend to give credit more, to peer
reviews or refutations that come from the same field, social science.

I've not found much to refute Strauss, more especially that he didn't
already point out in presentation, and calling out the Big Gun in
spanking support, Baumrind, only to have her show up with a short,
tiny pruned of contrary data demographics, sample, that was not even
peer reviewed, and read it to the premier national convention on child
and family social science was an exercise in the same kind of claim
support as you provide us.

Strauss stands in question, not in refutation, for most thinking
people, but for YOU Doan, special as you are, you have negated him by
using a peer review to refute him. Or you can admit you are using data
that is in question. And if it is in question in part, it is in all.

Do you wish to do that?

and found that the non-cp
alternatives are no better.

Citations please. And try to find some that aren't in Goobldegook.

Straus et al (1997), Straus & Mouradian (1998).... need more? ;-)

As I said above. You are using self declared refuted study material.
Are you wishing to do that? {-)}

The sources you are most likely are to refer to are focused
primarily
on pain ... that is they are still punishment based, simple not
direct
CP.

Including "talking to your children"????
I am not sure to what you refer. "Talking to children is only one
thing, not isolated for study, in a spectrum of punishment based
discipline. When we have a study that confines itself to non pain
parenting techniques that are entirely free of punishment, and
controls for unintended punishment (as a child might see a natural
consequence in that light), we'll get back to you, or as I invited
you, do one yourself. "

Frankly I'd be interested in seeing even some informal observation by
you. Can you find unspanked children in your area that are raised
without a punishment model? You might try a call to Tom Gordon's
outfit. As I recall they are in LaJolla. You could find a class in
your area, go through it and watch the progress by staying in touch
with the families as they learned applied over time the principles I'm
suggesting.

Frankly, you'll be pleased to know, I think in many instances they
fail even more than spanking. Both are pointless when dealing with
creatures that want to and are committed to learning.

That's "Goobldegook"! :-)

Why thank you for the critique. Didn't I say the pupil may well
surpass the master?
Here, I'd try to clarify.

I think you'll like it that I agree. Some no-spank parenting technique
suck and are worse than spanking. They are the highly punitive ones,
of course.

And...spanking and psychological punishments by parents are equally
pointless. I also know they are disruptive to children, because child
naturally want to learn. It's the parenting or teaching style that can
disrupt that the most. Or support it. Punishment of any kind,
physical or mental is not conducive to education.

To use pain parenting one has to be so lind or ignorant they
believe
the child doesn't want to learn, just because the child want's to
learn something the parent either doesn't see, or the parent
doesn't
want them to learn.

I know. Parents are just stupid right, Kane???

Those who use pain to teach? Some could be stupid, yes. More often
it's ignorance or mental aberration most often by way of their own
childhoods. I don't really think intelligence is a critical deciding
factor. I've worked successfully with the entire gamut of intellect
and all managed well. The more intelligent got a spell hit out of
though with their superior ability to put two and two
together...connect the dots as it were.
Your parents are so
smart! ;-)

Loving. More empathy. Happier. Relaxed. Less anxious. Gentle. Excited.
Brave. These things could go to make a more smart person, but I don't
think "smart" is a useful assessment.

Instead of redirecting and teaching, the use aversion. That is one
of
a maxim of pain parenting.

Great theory but is it pragmatic!

Yes.

Where is the proof?
In the lives of the people I've known, and still do and the children
they produced who are coming into middle age that I still now, and the
quality of their lives.

No, I haven't done any research. If you will only accept on scientific
research then how is it can tie your shoes in the morning. I've not
seen a study on the efficacy of doing it one way or the other.

How ever there are studies you can read. I don't expect you'll get it,
because you seem blind to objective analysis. I think you are
suspicious for a reason.

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems
10
times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would
use
such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal
are counterproductive."

Interestingly this is yet another of those deceptively worded bits
you
are so enamored of. Even a perfunctory scan shows that...or you
took
it so out of context the authors can't be understood.

You can do better than the "out of context" argument, Kane! :-)

No, I cannot. If you took it out of context that is a valid and
important argument for an attempt to dishonestly change the meaning.
But you keyed in this little bit of nonsense before the argument I did
make. Why is that I wonder?

What is more interesting is that your posting of this bit of
freefloating out of context text came after my statement:

We ask them to examine the risks and they deny there are any in
spanking as long as it's spanking, but everywhere one looks in
the
archives they have either described spanking very different and
or
defended practices of "spanking" or the more polite "CP" as they
wish
to call it that include vicious beatings with objects.


Unless something is missing there is NO responding text from you until
this:

"Alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial problems
10
times
more strongly than did non-impulsive physical punishment, and they
predicted child impulsivity 3 times more strongly. No one would
use
such
evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege
removal
are counterproductive."

Recall, I said we ask them to examine risks. Then you post something
about non-spanking parenting methods. The two are not connected.

What in your response answer my statement that they do not make risk
assessment for spanking.?

While I attempted to make some coherent response to this out of
context bit you threw from your sleigh to slow down the wolves (it's
rumored Russian peasants would throw a child or two, then the women,
then the weakest male..etc.) that does not make it a valid and honest
response to my statement. Just another diversion.

The only possible way to understand even the bogus claim would be
to
rewrite it. I'll do so, with the apparently missing but author
hoped
for "understood" words included.

Edit where you disagree, this is an exercise in clarification, not
a
debate at this point:


The use of alternative disciplinary responses predicted antisocial
problems 10 times
more than did non-impulsive physical punishment (with impulsive
physical punishment not accounted for), and the alternative
disciplinary responses predicted child impulsivity 3 times more
strongly.

No one would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time
out,
and/or privilege removal are counterproductive."

Here is an accounting of the bogus:

- Who is using reasoning, time out, and/privilege removal as being
counterproductive, except me of course? (Not a factor in this
statement) Non spankers use a lot of these aversive punishments,
but
not as much as spankers.

NO ONE!
Illogical on it's face. A plea not a fact. Some will do so using the
criteria offered in the claim quoted.
So why ban one and not the others?
So why ask about banning when this does not relate to the statement I
made claiming a lack of rigorous assessment of damage from spanking?

See the logic?
Of course. I also see that you threw this out to divert the wolves.

- What "antisocial behaviors" are being tabulated. Are they actual
directed at others words, hits, pinches, throwing, or are they in
the
- non compliance and exploratory category, the things children do
by
their nature and development? If the former they are serious, if
the
latter, it's to laugh....no use of alternative disciplinary
responses
or non-impulsive physical punishments need to be use at all. It's a
test of hurt vs non-hurt, not one kind of punishment being more or
less effective than another. Or it should be.

And you told me you have read the study. Were you lying or you
have forgotten how it was tabulated?

A completely irrelevant response. You did not address the issues I
brought up. And those from the very bit of dross you offered.

- What, for goodness sake, is a "non impulsive physical
punishment,"
as opposed to an impulsive one? And how could the be testing for
the
latter. And who, upon survey when asked, "did you spank after
giving
it some thought and deciding on the punishment, or did you just
impulsively spank?" would answer affirmatively to the latter very
often?

Read the study and learn.

Diversionary. I asked YOU a question. You haven't answered. If you
post a partial bit from a study and expect the person to remember all
the study you are being clearly ingenuous. YOU don't remember the
whole study, why should I. If you have an argument YOU support it from
the study. I'm not obligated to and my reading or not is irrelevant to
your attempt to obfuscate that you have left the issues under
discussion.

Please don't argue from ignorance.
Not in the least. Arguing with someone that will not give the
supporting facts is a way to expose their duplicity. My inability to
respond in a fashion YOU determine as correct is an exposure of YOUR
dishonesty in withholding needed information.

You
looked foolish that way! :-)

Because YOU withhold facts and expect me to remember them accurately
from a whole study?

I don't think so. If you have an argument and there are facts that
support your argument and you withhold them, who looks foolish again?

- And I must revisit this strange free floating declarative: "No
one
would use such evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out,
and/or
privilege removal are counterproductive."

Why would THAT be the question? Productivity is the question do
they
work? Not, do they keep something from working...counterproductive.

Because that is what the current "child development experts" are
recommending in lieu of spanking!

I am not one of the "child development experts" you are debating.
Unless you think they are reading you are failing to address me, and
MY arguments. Very neatly.

I recommend nonpunitive parenting...that means no kind of deliberate
punishments of any kind. I will argue that with you, but I cannot
argue someone else's argument. See the CDE's you mention for further
nonsense.

I've many times criticized the use of other punishments to replace
physical punishments so if you continue to argue with me that the non
CP disciplines are not proven to be effective, you are preaching to
the choir.

You know, like "quality time"
instead of just spending time with your child.

I'm unfamiliar with that sophisticated a claim. To me quality time
with a child can be any kind of time, as long as you are WITH that
child and not amusing yourself with Pinocle with the neighbors. Alone
with the child is always quality time if you aren't diverting yourself
most of it.

What they mean to say is attention to the child. Undistracted
attention for even 10 minutes is a huge improvement in communications
and connection with the child and enhances her sense of self worth
immensely. And it's fun. And kids afterward are much more compliant
and cooperative and at peace.

I have taught people how to use such powerful tools for that kind of
connection that they could get their child quality time down to 10
minutes...but most don't want to...too much fun being with the child.

I'm reminded of my efforts over the years to decipher federal
guidelines relating to the application of federal laws. The laws
themselves are paeans of clarity compared to the gobbled rhetoric
of
the guidelines. And the damage is clearly evident in what
bureaucrats
can get away with in the applications of the law under such
wording.

That would explain CPS. The people on the top get most of the money
and the front line social-workers and children get the scraps!

Please list, alpha order for ease of referral and include cites and
sources and links, 10 organizations that are not, in the use, so
organized?

Never had an exec level job, have you. There is a reason they get paid
more. The removal of a good one shows nearly immediate disruption and
degradation downline...until her shoes are filled with an equal or
better.

No, the children don't get scraps. They get what the law mandates they
get, every single penny, and often even more that workers struggle to
scrounge up. And front line social workers aren't underpaid for the
job description. They are underpaid for the guff they take and the
miserable scenes they go into every working day of their working
lives. There is no relief from the misery they are witness to.

The pain of children. Their physical and psychic injuries. Their
developmental disabilities they'll carry for life that will make their
lives full of more pain and a great deal of loss, much anger and
despair they may never be rid of.

Rape with internal as well as external injuries, beatings, broken
bones, black eyes on a beautiful baby, toddlers in traction, babies
dying in the foster mother's arms because no one else but the worker
and the FP care enough to be there, not even those ever loving
parents.

You aren't worthy to sympathize with workers. You are an insult to
decent people who have conscience and sense of social responsibility.

A few month back I got a call from a grandmother who had to have her
own daughter arrested the year before. The grandmother then got to go
through a year of caring, alone, for an aids baby. She asked me to
come over, as it was the weekend and no one at her local CPS office
could leave except on an allegation investigation call...on two on
duty.

She needed someone to sit with her through the last hours of the
child's life.

Leave CPS workers out of your smarmy sick attempts to divert from your
immoral displays here.

So with the very strange citation that was for support of your
claim
of

"I and many people have examined the risks and found that the
non-cp
alternatives are no better." What? Not more counterproductive? That
non-impulsive CP was three times better at child impulsivity
control?

Yup!

And the relevance, asshole?

Just how much "impulsivity" (what the hell IS that exactly) do we
wish
to control in the child? Or is this the Singapore model?

You have read the study. Why ask me?

Because YOU posted the partial information. I'm not going to respond
to a partial support of something you want to post to defend something
that we weren't discussing. It's a new subject entirely...and
yours...defend it with the information. Not with dumping small pieces
of **** you found on your last trip home.
That is why I have been asking for years now. Is there any
"peer-reviewed" research that showed that the non-cp alternatives
are
any better under the same statistical scrutiny?

The Embry study. You haven't gotten it yet, have you? I have. Long
long ago. I love reading it, watching you demand, refusing to make
a
simple request of the researcher. He's nice, really he is, but I
don't
think you agree with his findings so you are staying as far from
them
as possible.

Now you claim you have read the Embry study, yet just days ago, on
this
very same newsgroup, you said you have read it.

Did you mean "you said you have *not* read it"?

I had not read it for some time. I post the magazine piece as I do not
have reprint rights to the study. I don't think I intended to deceive.
In the middle of the conversation I cannot recall something I haven't
read recently. I might well say, I haven't read it.

So are you lying now?
No I'm not lying. I am not intending to deceive. I have the study. I
reread it recently. Not even in detail, just perused.

And if I were lying would it diminish your responsibility to ask for
it yourself if YOU claim it isn't valid?

Why do you dwell on these small details not relevant to issues. My
honesty or lack of same has ZERO effect on the credibility of the
Embry study.

Do you wish to refute the Embry study? Ask for it. I will not debate
with one of us NOT having the data at hand. I cannot legally post the
study. GET YOUR OWN ****ING COPY, NITWIT.

It's available.
And...as usual.....

So show me the details of this Embry study. How many children did
they studied? What methodology did they used? Come on, Kane.
Enlighten
me!

I am not going to offend another's copyright to let you play. The
study is available from the source. I even gave you the source. I will
not post parts or all of someone else's intellectual property without
permission. I don't wish to ask for permission because I know the
kinds of **** you will pull with the information.

If YOU want to play **** stick with someone's study YOU ask him for
it. I respect him and it. And the laws of copyright.

You didn't provide a citation that included "the same statistical
scrutiny." You are simply up to the same asinine nonsense as
always.
Demands for proof where you provide none yourself.

I did provide the citation: Straus & Mouradian (1998)!

That is a study refuted now, to your satisfaction, or you wouldn't
have posted it as proof, a cross discipline peer review. Do you wish
to use a refuted study to support your argument?
If you ask for statistics to refute your claims the lest you could
provide is some statistically valid studies. There aren't any.

That is why I ask the parents to make up their own mind.

Why do you have to ask them to do anything at all? If you are in fact
convinced there are no valid studies why do you not use the most
neutral statement of all...shut your mouth. That would prove you have
morals.

Instead you rant and taunt, and lie and run, and **** your **** and
slup up your asshole to hide.
You are here. This is a newsgroup that is for the consideration of
spanking issues. Telling people to make up their own mind presupposes
they could make an informed decision.

You do not admit to them that there is no support for spanking. YOU
post claims there is.



It is not
who making the claim, Kane. It is the anti-spanking zealotS like
you that making claims with no proof!

And now you are lying again. We have posted a massive amount of data
that you cherry pick from to attack. You dig for peer reviews, and
phony publically declared nonsense by the "experts" that isn't peer
reviewed to attempt to discredit sound research..by avoidance.

We are tired of your cherrypicking asshole behavior.

If you are asking for us to match the "statistical scrutiny" of the
proffered citation, don't you think that a bit lower than Strauss?

So now you dish Straus? ;-)

I have not defended Straus. I consider his study a step... a rather
big step, considering the restraints of method that must be part of
social science studies. No destructive testing, no deliberate
application of pain, they aren't even let off the hook if they observe
abuse...they too must report. No, Straus is a very brave man to have
done as much as he did, and the little jackals that come snapping at
his heels he responds to as a gentleman and scholar.

His work will be considered one day a seminal to this question of CP.
No study can do the entire job at once. It's a rare one that can cover
an entire field of inquiry. It must be done in steps. He has done a
remarkable one.

Other studies I've cited you stay well away from. Why is that?.
Haven't you ever noticed that I've never cited Strauss for support
of
any claim of mine.

Are you sure? If I can provide one, just one, would you admit to the
fact that you are being dishonest? Or would you just weasel, again?
:-0
Is mistaken always "dishonest" to you? Do you realize how patently
dishonest THAT is?

I can make a mistake. It is not dishonest of me to do so. I can
misquote myself. It is not dishonest of me to do so unless I did it
knowingly. A mistake, in English, is not a lie.

Attempting to make a mistake a lie is a lie in itself. When I question
you and suggest you are lying I do offer you the same opportunity to
admit a mistake. With you though, I understand your sickness and how
very difficult it is for you to admit a mistake...for you believe,
apparently by your posting above, that a mistake is a lie.
And in the end simply data counting, like abuse data, looking
around
you, would provide anybody with "reasonable standards" all the
support
they needed to understand the risks of spanking vs the near zero
risk
of not.

Then go ahead and convince the Supreme Court and 90%+ of the parents
in the USA to ban spanking??? Are they not "reasonable"???
I don't have to convince the SC, nor 90+%. Only state after state. And
that is being done. And country after country. And that is well
underway.

And all I have to convince them of is that there really IS no
conceivable way to write a law that protects the rights of parents to
spank that the public can count on.

Complaints here about CPS abound and for that very reason. It isn't
possible. You have tried your considerable talents at weaseling and
answer to The Question, and despite your extraordinary capacity for
personal embarrassment, have failed miserably.

You have helped me. Others are watching our posts. They access
legislators. You are going to become famous.

Your weaseling may well be quoted in the bills that will be written.
For you see this IS a constitutional question of interpretation of
law. As each law is defeated, and I wish them defeated, that is used
to prosecute abuse by parents on the grounds of abridgement of their
civil rights....those pertaining to the prosecution, not the right to
beat their child, a law will have to be written that make any use of
force against a child illegal. They will enjoy the same protection YOU
do against assault.

And you are stupid enough to engage in this question and provide even
more proof that the laws can't be enforced because of the lack of
clarity over The Question..WHERE IS THAT ****IN' LINE.

NO BODY KNOWS because it's immeasurable. The only solution the assault
solution.

I want to thank you for all your time and trouble, and I want to thank
you for all the children that will not live in fear, will not have
bones broken, will not have flesh bruised, will enjoy a family that
cherishes them as they should be.

And finally I want to thank you for your contribution to families.
Many will rethink their spanking decision because of you. They will
see your disingenuousness in telling them to make up their own mind
while promoting spanking, and reviling non punitive and non CP
methods.

Your loss of empathy in childhood, as sad and tragic as it is for YOU,
will serve other children, and families you sympathize with.

Thank you.

We can't say, and neither can you, exactly how much the risk
is, but we CAN say they are high.

If you can't say how much, how can you say they are high???
By the count. 3 million reports of child abuse in a year. 800k+ abuse
and neglect cases.

Any fraction of that number is "high" my book. I tend not to see
injured children statistically. I colors my arguments. So sue me.

The variables are impossible to deal with. There isn't enough money or
parental intensity to observe accurately or training to know what to
look for, to ensure that parents just doing a spanking within the
lower ranges of intensity, duration, frequency, can account for a
child who might be mentally compromised lacking outward signs (rather
common), or a physically dangerous condition that hasn't manifested
sufficiently for the parent to spot, or if a child has had an
unreported injury that could be intensified by a spanking.

No, the argument for spanking is too often based on guesses. Not
spanking walks a family safely right OUT of those risks, and more as
they become very unlikely to lose their children on a spanking abuse
allegation.

Where is the proof? BTW, even Straus admitted that the risk is LOW!
I do not think he was referring to injury, do you? If he was I'd say
the same to him. Low risk does not equate with individual child safety
in the light of clarity in limits shortfalls.

That argument that spanking should be a choice based on low risk
probability is socially irresponsible and if he made it I'd have no
trouble in asking him to reconsider. To the owner of the life life is
not replaceable. And the damages to body and mind can be lifelong and
irrefutable.
There ARE broken bones, and minds, out there the result of
spanking. I
play the odds. No spanking has very low odds of resulting in
injury.

Using that logic, you can say that not discipline your kids at all
has
a very low odds of resulting in injury!

No, I cannot say that. YOU can say that to misled.
Not PHYSICALLY PUNISHING your kids has a very low odds of resulting in
injury. Just what I said. Using non pain parenting to discipline has
the lowest possible chance of injury to mind and body.

I often point out here and elsewhere that the word discipline is not
the same as punishment, not in this time or the past. Each derives
from the Latin. A study shows that one could possibly include
punishment within the meaning of discipline but it is NOT explicitly
punishment in itself. It is about teaching and learning. One
definition was, "to lead out."

I find "to lead out" very difficult to reconcile with "to cause harm
to penalize" as "Punere" means. The root of "punish."

One of the maxims of academia, at least where I come from, is to know
the meaning of your terms. I see great harm in poorly understood and
so poorly stated meanings.

To punish does not always mean to teach. And to discipline does not
always mean to punish. And the terms are miles apart in etiology and
semantically.

The question has always been
what is a better "non-cp" alternative and how do we know that it is
better?

That is "A" question. Not "The" question. The Question has to do with
choices parents make.
And in the best tradition of medicine, "Physician, do no harm, " I
would suggest to parents, Parent Do No Harm.
They cannot respond to that with spanking as the option they chose.

I have never tried to provide proof that all non-cp alternatives are
better. Some are no better than CP. What I have contended, and offered
some support for by citation and reference that you refuse to go and
get yourself and insist I educate you while you play at peer review,
is that non-PUNITIVE methods work are the best of all.

Dr. Embry, I believe might not agree with me. I haven't found in his
studies anywhere he says that in all circumstances non-punitive is
successful or superior, but in the street entry study he found the, to
his astonishment...being a believer in spanking at the time....they
where extraordinarily effective.

They weren't non-CP punishments, they were non PUNISHMENT teaching and
training.

You and others here have been offered such information from better
qualified people than I in these ngs, and you have scoffed at them and
ridiculed them. You have NOT tried to learn about them other than GIVE
ME SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
If we'd waited for scientific proof of the obvious you and I would be
notching sticks and sending them by runner from here to there to have
this conversation.

We used electricity to our benefit long before we knew what an
electron was and did.

Well, there are an increasing number of us, like Embry, Straus, Tom
Gordon, and those in psychology and child development before him, that
have been "using electricity" for decades to the benefit of families
and children and society.

Researchers ARE looking at the involved "electrons," more and more.
Learning theory is no longer based on observations of the external
behaviors of subjects. The researchers are looking directly at
realtime live scoped brain activity as subjects are tested in learning
tasks. Been going on for years, and it's showing remarkable things.

I do not think we'll see all to soon though, children wired up and
spanked while they try to learn about conscience, and why we don't hit
our neighbors, or bite our little sisters.

It would be enlightening. We can track the parts of the brain that do
different tasks, and are involved in characteristics we didn't know
how focus loci on the brain. Wonderful stuff. We know now what part of
the brain is involved in processing incoming data for moral
assessment...conscience now has a brain location...and it's not very
big. And gross abuse of a child can cause it to show dark...NO
activity...now that scary.

Would YOU be willing to guess at the limit of spanking your child and
the development or suppress of that area of the brain? Not me. I
figured out on my own by behavioral observation and reading of others
observations that hitting a child does NOT make them develop a
conscience. The contrary. Every sociopathic teen I ever worked with
came from a punishment oriented over-controlling family....some not
even that much.

I still can't find where anyone injured a child by not spanking
them.
Please provide some data on this. A negative is so difficult to
prove
that scientist use as an axiom, "You cannot prove a negative."

And you want me to prove a negative??? What logic!
Yes. That WAS my point, wasn't it. To point out the illogic? Why would
I post it is impossible if I actually was challenging you to do it.

My point is, **** you are dumb, that I don't HAVE to risk injuring a
child by my choice of discipline. And no one has been able to prove
harm from NOT painfully disciplining though some have tried, and lied,
and been caught at it, and are murderously angry at being caught.
What they HAVE learned to do over the years is avoid the hard
questions. Either they refuse to answer, or debate (they do
anything
but debate when asked to), or they insist we answer our own
questions.

Are you talking about LaVonne? ;-)

Why yes. I'm thinking of her restraint and humoring of you and the
Plantlife. I have no such inhibitions or niceties of delivery. I'm
thinking that your citations and claims just as this one you tried
with me left her incredulous. The sheer gall of anyone to try and
palm
off such drivel and defend with such unreasoned claims as yours is
an
affront to anyone that can think and is honest.

But my citations are the same one that she produced! I just brought
them
out in the open so that everyone can see them. She can't debate me
and
instead, has chosen to run! ;-)
Liar. I watched. You played the same games as you try with me. I have
more patience than she and much much more experience with the
criminally insane and morally degenerate to bring to this little tete
a tete.

But in the final analysis, what drives folks away from you is the
disgust at your continued defense of what is so plainly
indefensible.
The nonsense desperate twisting with divergent word choices, the
reliance on fuzzy meanings and word choices that are plainly
indefinable, that citation filled with them, concepts that come out
of
no known discipline, social science, medical science, mental
health...it's as though you and your sources are making up a
discipline of madness.

LOL! It is only nonsense to the anti-spanking zealotS. It makes
sense to 90%+ of the parents out there.

You can look at the world and brag about the 90+% having sense?
Hmmm...you really are impaired. I have the uncomfortable embarrassment
of now being guilty, I think, of doing what I recently admonished
others for doing...mixing it up critically with someone obviously
mentally health compromised.
A whole segment of the population screaming, "I'd hit my child if I
want to and call it spanking and I'll invent MORE words to
obfuscate...and you can't stop me because the law and some
"reasonable
people" protect me."

LOL! We can just declare you as the "Emperor" instead! ;-)

I don't recall asking for the job. Nor is there anything on such a
subject in the paragraph you refer to. I simple described what in fact
happens rather often and you defend.

Imagine how better the world would be if the anti-spanking zealotS
are in charge! ;-)

Hmmmm... now that you mention it, that IS my long term goal. Yes, I
want the entire world taken over by people that do not hit children or
punish them. I am, of course realistic. It will take some time...but
at one time the world people were of two kinds only , the peaceful and
the raiding barbarian. Would you deny the peaceful seem to be winning?
We don't seem to be wiping each other out at quite the same rate as
before. Even with closer proximity.

I believe we are not only learning peace but breeding it as well. Men
and women who are peaceful seem to be seeking each other out. I don't
recall so many man doing primary parenting when I was young. I was the
only one I knew. Now they are all over the place, learning peace from
their children.
You are witnessing, if you've followed this thread, something of
a
thumbnail sketch of what has been going on for years. The same
tired
avoidance and misdirection and frequently instead of answering
asking
stupid unrelated questions.

That would be you, Kane! ;-)

What questions have I not answered that you asked? That is so
common
in your posts that great long sections I leave in just so folks can
see all the times you simply ignored, and all the times you've said
things as brilliant as "That would be you, Kane! ;-)" instead of
directly answering the charge or claim made.

Let's start with the details of the Embry study, Kane. You said you
haven't read it and now you said you read it long ago!

Is that one of the details of the Embry study? I did not know my
reading it was included in the data.

I do not know that if I made a typo or if I am being taken out of
context that it's not relevant to the content of the Embry study.

I've seen monkeys with better manners.
So me all those times you haven't misdirected, all those times you
have asked questions that weren't stupid, "Are you talking about
LaVonne? ;-)"

You've no arguments. Just a litany of such garbage.

Only if you are looking into a mirror! ;-)
What? You just said "let's take the Embry study." This isn't about the
Embry study. It's more litany of garbage and a refusal to take what
you just brought up an discuss it.

You can either take my word for it if I claim I am basing a statement
on something from the Embry study or ......... YOU........CAN......GO
...........AND .............GET........IT.

We don't spank, hence he have no worry about injury to your
children.
The ONLY argment they've ever been able to mount against
non-spanking
is "you can't prove by peer reviewed scientific research that it
works
better than spanking."

And your answer is????

My answer is: And again, garbage.

No one can set up the experiment. It would be immoral and illegal.

Who said anything about an experiment? Being stupid again, Kane.
Studies have been been on spanking and non-cp alternative. There
haven't been any experiment!

YOU, stupid, posted a peer review to refute Sraus. The argument, which
you apparently didn't read, or didn't understand, shoots down your use
of such studies without experimentation. If you wish to use Straus as
a standard to demand similar studies then you have to figure how to
UNREFUTE the refutation of the good doctor you cited and quoted.
Go back and read it. He used the failure to do experiments as a reason
to invalidate portions of the Straus study.
Please review what stupidity is...you have a terribly bad case of it.

So you refuse and deny the studies that are observational and
survey
with a claim they aren't scientific on the same standards where the
subject can be destroyed or manipulated painfully.

I said they should be taken with a grain of salt. The children of
teenage, minority, single-mothers are not the same as your children.
You know your children best. You make your own decision on this
subject. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOU?

Yes, it is clear that you are stupid.

Yes. I and those that read this (as if they didn't know before) are
clear that you have a bad case of denial of the facts.

Yes, and your claim is patently false. A blanket statement that an
individual or parents collectively know their child best, better than
anybody else, would have to presuppose that they know all of the
disciplines that serve children. And a genius of factual knowledge
access under difficult conditions...something that human beings are
NOT good at.

A parent might MIGHT know more quickly than a doctor that something is
wrong with their child, but not WHAT. And it's obvious by the great
number of child abuses that some parents DO NOT know their child best
if the child welfare constitutes a "best."

I'm reminded of the parent in the supermarket

What they smugly wallow around in is the denial that we don't
have
to. They have jails and mental illness on their side to defend
spanking and pain parenting....it abviously works, if you want
to
keep those places busy. Just look at Singapore and Sweden.
:-)

As I said, "smugly."

What wold I look for, corruption and dictatorial savagery against
the
people on the one hand, and less child abuse on the other?

So you prefer to see more abuse??? And just to clarify my point, I am
not claiming any casual link here!

Our children, who they claim are spoiled and are little bundles
of
ASB
(anti social behavior) are the criminals and crazies, yet our
children
can't be found in such populations in any statistically
significant
numbers, and when one gets down to it, since 90+% of children
are
spanked in this country, it's a given, unless they want to prove
that
teh 10% or so unspanked are ten percent of prison and mental
healt
facility population.

Lying again, Kane. Did I say anything about your children being
spoiled?

Did I say you did? I said "they."

And who are they???

Is "they" inclusive of only YOU and no one else? I had no idea you
were a plural. Sockpuppetry?

So in a post replying to me, you go off a tangent and posted that
which
have nothing to do with me???


Semantic trickery isn't debate. It's a ploy. You are exposed.

It's your ploy not mine! Remember you claimed "juvenile crime-rate"
and NOT "juvenile violent crime rate"????

In this case I suspect we are not all talking about the same
kind
of
"beating" of children.

No, actually we are NOT. The language is of child abuse by
"discipline" is kept intentionally vague by them because they
know
they cannot defend such practices in concrete measurable terms.
Short
of experiments that were desctructive of the subjects they are
up
the
creek.

Then the researchers must be stupid right, Kane?

It's "stupid" not to use test subjects in experiments when it would
be
immoral and illegal?

Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-) Who said anything about
experiments?

You refuse to accept as valid other studies and methodology Doan.
Who
would be the stupid one? Should there be no observational only or
observational non destructive, survey, or even review of the body
of
research because those do not meet the standard of medical
experiment?

Nope! I said they should be hold to the same standards? If we are
claiming that the "alternatives" are better, then we should subject
the same "alternatives" to the same statistical scrutinies!

Personally I don't think we could get most parents to give up their
children such things and autopsy later.

I know. Parents are just stupid! ;-)

But we note you didn't respond to anything but the last sentence.
No
opinion on the other claims I made. You are known, sometimes, Doan,
by
the company you don't keep.

I known by who I am! And you certainly don't know who my company
are!

Did they study "beating"
and not spanking???

They studied CP. Sadly, they did not accept that some parents will,
with your support and permission, decide for themselves what
reasonable CP is, and manage to injure and or kill their children.

And spanking is not CP??? I gave support and permission for peole
to kill their children??? Since when did I become the emperor?

Now there would be a study. The entire spectrum.

Surely YOU could do it Doan.

How? I am just a simple boy. ;-(

They seem quite willing to continue the risky practice and let
the
children be injured by those who lose control and pass the line
into
abuse to preserve THEIR right to whack their children when and
how
they see fit, as though it were some medieval right of the
manor.

Yup! Parents just don't care about their own kids!!!

Oh, I think you shouldn't make such a statement in the plural. I
have
to point out your disreputable use of English once again.

90%+ of the parents!

Back for another English lesson folks. One he won't bother answer
to...but necessary after all:

One has to presume, in the use of the plural that all individuals
in
the set have the same characteristics being associated...as in
"don't
care about their kids?"

Since that is patently untrue....some parents do care and some
don't,
then it is incorrect to assign such a belief to the opponent. I
didn't
say, you might not, that all parents didn't care about their kids,
as
evidenced by my use of "those who lose control."

That would indicate to most native users, and reasonably literate
users, of the English language that I referred to a subset of
parents,
not the whole.

Which introduces the interesting opportunity for a question:

Do you think I meant all parents don't care about their children?
What in my post would lead you to believe that, and if you cannot
find
it are you prepared to retract the obviously rhetorical and
accusatory
question?

Semantic trickery again, Kane! ;-)


Their claims to defend the practice amount to "it's been done
for
thousands of years without harm...etc." When they know damn
well
it has had great harm. Yup! Parents just don't care about
their children. Parents are just there to harm their kids!!!
Great
logic, Kane! ;-)

In the matter of logic I just blushed for you.

Oh, I am touched! :-)

In the matter of honesty pertaining to you, I just flushed.

You meant just as I flushed the stuff that come from your mouth?

In the matter of conscience and decency pertaining to you, I just
sighed.

:-(

For you see, Doan, not a soul here, not even your Tree, or your
Whore,
could support that you don't know that SOME parents, that very
population that overshoots the mark on spanking and other harm to
children, DON'T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN SUFFICIENTLY NOT TO HARM THEM.

But that is you claim! You used the small percentage of parents who
abused their kids and generalized to all parents who spanked.

So "no," not all parents. And "yes," some parents. That has to be
true
with rare exception when using plurals to distinguish as large a
demographic as "parents."

or spanking "parents".

Or do you really want to defend a claim (if you are making it) that
ALL parents love their children?

That is not what I claimed. But I can say with confident that ALL,
except
a few, love their children! But that would lead to your problem of
calling ALL spankings as abuse. For if ALL spankings are abuse then
ALL spanking parents are abusers! Your call. :-)

Or, as I suspect in many cases, their own judgement on matters
of
harm
or not have been harmed by their own received spankings as
children.

AND KANE RECEIVED NO SPANKINGS AND LOOK HOW A "NEVER-SPANKED" KID
LIKE
KANE TURNED OUT!!! :-)

On what evidence do you base your claim I received no spankings as
a
child? I had many people parent me. I've said so. When asked I
honestly answered that my parents never spanked me.

Semantic and weaseling again. So here is your chance to make it
clear.
Were you or were you not spanked as a child?

Why do you wish to know? You claim I already said I was
"never-spanked." You jumped up and down daring me to challenge, "I
DARE YOU I DOUBLE DARE YOU" (I haven't heard that since 4th grade)
your claim that I had said I was "never-spanked" and or denied it. Now
your are demanding to know something you claim you already know by my
"confession."
What gives with you, Doan. Is it important to you to know if I was or
not? Why is it important to you? And why don't you simple pound my ass
with this all important piece of information that you say you have
already?

MORE weaseling? More threats, empty as your head? Whassup bro?

You have a problem with plurals and singulars and the understanding
of
them, do you not?

I've never said if anyone else spanked me or not. And frankly,
other
than your use of something to harass with, the information is of no
use to you. So, no deal.

Cop out!

But I thought you already knew. And had said I wasn't? How could That
be a cop out to not tell you what you already know? I believe you. You
must know if you would be so brash as to post a school boy taunt. Go
ahead, embarrass me. Expose me. The whole world will know one way or
another, then we can get back to what you are diverting from with this
nonsense. Times'awastin' monkey boy.
So, how have I turned out?

From what I see on this newsgroup, very bad!

And your capacity to objectively judge is based on...?

Well....

I have a peace of mind and comfort I didn't know could come with so
much work of the kind I did. And it's with some pride I say that I
managed to not burn out as others did along the way.

I am your worst nightmare, Doan.

Actually, you are what I look forward to in this newsgroup -
anti-spanking
zealotS who cannot argue coherently and resort to invectives and name
callings when cornered. Life is fun! ;-)

I'm glad you have something. It can't be enjoyable to live in a head
where you have go keep dodging the truth about your social and
personal irresponsibility and putting children at risk.

And there are many more just like me. Many are parents that got the
message themselves, or professionals that came to it through study
and
research, but what it all boils down to, Doan, is that you are an
immoral anti social narcissistic danger to society, and we are not.

I heard that from the bible-thumping nuts on campus too. We are
going
to hell! Must I repent now? ;-)

I'm an atheist. I have no way of assessing that if you are going to
hell. Nor do I believe there is a hell except inside those that have
been spanked too much. And I wouldn't presume to tell you to repent. I
would tell you to make up your own mind though.

It's morally repugnant but since I have no accurate gauge of just how
much harm you've done (I can't assess the stupidity of the stupid that
might take you seriously) I have to simply tell you to decide.

That is what keeps you here. You have to debate us to maintain your
image, the facade you and your parents created, so that the
underside
of the maggoty dead beast of "spanking" won't be seen.

Is that ALL spankings or just SOME? ;-)

All. They all have some element of decadence. One rotten apple in a
barrel you know.

You have about 90% of the population and you STILL can't stop us
because the truth, even to the delusional Doan's, is still the
truth.

Yup! The truth according to the anti-spanking zealotS! Who need
proof!
;-)

You certainly don't seem to. You ignore it when you get it, and
hair-split your monkey ****.

And slowly but surely and with increasing speed, we are defeating
savage parenting practices.

Fight on! ;-)

Thank you. If you hang around long enough there'll be noone to tell,
"make up your own mind."

The Embry's, the Strauss's, and the ASZ's that come to this ng, the
school officials, the legislators, and the young, raised with
non-pain
based parenting who will become parents themselves, are taking you
down. It just takes time.

Unfortunately, time is what you don't have. My bet is your body will
be
food for maggots before then. :-0
You'd win. I'm pretty old. My wife tells me they couldn't kill me with
a pickaxe though. Some have tried. ...etc.

Does the thought of my death cheer you? That would be something for a
self declared neutral. One more thing to add to the balance of post
that clearly establish you searingly obvious lack of same.

Steer me to your attacks on pro spanking arguments. I must have miss
the thousands you've posted.

Funny thing too. I notice as more and more take on and accept
non-pain
parenting, suddenly those that were once great champions of
spanking
and the right of parents to decide, start talking about how
wonderful
the new child rearing methods are.

Fads come and go. It took communism 70 years to collapse.

Are our granddaughters then going to lose the vote? Should I alert any
African Americans that might not be reading this today to the
likelihood their children will be going back into slavery?
Will the U.S. repeal the personal income tax anytime soon? How about
indentured servitude? And deptor's prison? Which of these is on the
rebound...oh, and in case you hadn't been keeping up, the communists
in Russia have decidedly not gone away.

Where DO you come up with these utterly doofus examples?

Spanking has come and gone to. Some cultures are shocked to see a
child hit or hurt deliberately. The perps are ostracized. Things wax
and wan, but one thing the seems to keep coming back, human freedom
from the inappropriate control of one over the other. Just seems to be
a theme.
anti-spanking zealotry will take about the same.
First ever national law against spanking. 79 I think. I'll be gone
when it collapses like communism. Too bad.

Some, however, will
survive and hang on to the mystical "dream" land on top of a
Malaysian
mountian. :-)
We weren't supposed to fly either, or go faster than a horse could
run. Supposed to stop us from breathing.

Funny eh? The more we get the more we GET.

It's hysterical!

Nervous?

Sometimes people are just being argumentative to score points
with
other
readers of the NG.

There are occasions. For myself, not matter what my intent may
appear
to be, humorous, or not, my intent is quite serious.

Yup! Kane is the poster boy for the anti-spanking zealotS! ;-)

I consider others here far more knowledgeable and skilled than I. I
see wonderful lists of non-punitive parenting methods posted. I see
sharing of new discoveries, and new research by others than me, and
I
admire them all.

LOL!

The nervous Doan laugh. Yes I can pretty well call it up when I wish
to see it now.

If I were the poster boy it would be an honor, but I don't need it.
I'm very satisfied with my work so far...more especially with you.

And I do enjoy your "company"! ;-)
Expect a long joyful life.


It's almost as gratifying as watching a formerly dangerous teen
leave
treatment with a set of morals and ethics and the capacity to
contribute and know right from wrong without any more of those
social
misfit survivalist sophistries that you so commonly use.

LOL! You are God's gift to trouble-teens. Pat yourself on the back,
Kane!
;-)

I was, I have. And it seems others moreso than myself. Kind of
embarrassing. You ask for evidence. I offer personal testimony, very
personal and important to me and you ridicule it. Is this what you
want proof for?
I always ask myself if I would send the same posting by
private
e-mail.
If not, then I don't send it.

I always ask myself, since this isn't my private E-mail, what
would
be
most effective in the debate to make my argument. My hope, of
course,
since I'm not Doan who would claim he's just supporting the
right
of
the parent to make their own choice whether or not to beat their
child
(and be assured, "beat" is what he and his coterie DO defend
regardless of their protestations otherwise)is that those who
are
spanking but looking for a way to stop will be helped to make
that
decision.

Right, Kane. Ad-hom attacks are your specialty!

I'm good, yes, but by no means a specialist.

And it showed! ;-)

???
Wassamatta, Can't catch up?

I am trying! ;-)
What for? To provide more credibility to your claim of neutrality?

I've never quite figured out the reasoning or morals of those that
just put out a short string of ad hom and don't address the issue
under discussion honestly though. At least once in awhile

LOL! Self-criticism now, Kane?
Of course. Those with healthy egos make use of self criticism quite
unashamedly. However, this time I was considering my lack of
understanding of those that can't debate honestly. This an interest of
yours too?
It's quite simple, all argument aside.

Spankers risk children's safety, lives, and future.

Yup! But that would make 99%+ of humans worldwide.

Yes, there are rather a lot of damaged children.

They tend to grow up with exaggerated xenophobia of many kinds:
homophobia, misogyny, racial bigotry, and religious exclusivity. It
makes for wars, and for brutality to each other among us humans.

Yup! They just don't believe in the "dream" land!
If that were true then you would be saying they believe in their
reactions to homosexuals, women, other races, and that those of other
religions are less than human. Hmmmm. Well, okay.

I've not figured out or found a word to describe the fear of one's
own
children, but the evidence is clear. Some use methods of parenting
that are illegal against adults. I can't assign a meaning to it but
either sadism or a fear response.

I didn't know "adults" need parenting, Kane. Must be my bad English.
:-0

Thank you for the lesson in clarity. I will of course expect an
equally energetic response to the point I was making when I make it
clearer.

Parents do things to their children that are illegal to do to adults.
Parents call it discipline with child. The police will arrest you for
it if it's an adult you do those things to.

Any thoughts? I thought not.

I'm not taken in by the claims of loving their children, and doing
what's best for their children. Perps of domestic violence say the
same. I know THEY believe it, but the evidence is strongly against
those claims being true.

Generalizing again, Kane. :-)

Telling others to "Make up their own mind" again, Doan.

Have you anything to offer in rebuttal but a babble?

Do domestic violence perps not claim, as parents sometimes do, they
did it out of love?
However, if I didn't think they WANTED to love their children, I
wouldn't be here.

You are so altruistic! ;-)

I am, that's true. And the fault in that?

Why is then the
non-spanking cultures just don't survive???

If we have to hurt our children to survive does that not put
survival
in question as a value?

Nope! Without survival, everything else is overated! Our
forefathers
said it best: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

For many children I read it as, "Life, just barely, confined in the
sickness of their parents making, and a lifetime of misery."

Until the children have the same protection you and I have against
assault then I'm not terrible in love with what your forefathers said.
They modeled it on our forefathers of course, but it still suck for a
lot of citizens.

I think I'll keep on, since you seem to value it, keeping things in
context and see if children can have there share but volunteer means,
or if that falls by enforcement of the laws.

We deserve to survive, and will survive, when we can learn how to
birth and parent children without deliberate use of pain to control
and "teach" them. And it isn't even hard, unless one is an instinct
only driven animal.

We are human beings. We have to be pragmatic. We have to use our
brain to make the best decision. We can just bow down and let
the "experts" do the thinking for us.

Have shot at overhauling your car engine. After all, it's yours. You
know it best.
Or you could try brain surgery, on yourself please. It's bad enough
you encourage a virtual brain surgery by parents that are not
surgeons.

And the evidence is in the events. We AREN'T SURVIVING. We are
destroying the thin skin of the biosphere we can survive in
unassisted. We are killing each other in droves around the planet.
We
rape and kill our own children. We murder our spouses. We let our
fellows starve. And we populate to the point of resource
exhaustion,
degradation of the food sources, increase in communicable diseases,
with new strains growing and distributed ever faster.

We are surving despite what the chicken-little of the world is
telling us.
So are the dinosaurs...opps. And I'm hard pressed to find the DodoBird
these days. No, Doan, the potentials for risk are way beyond the
casual reliance on self deluding can sustain much longer. That worked
before we had such potentials as we have today.

We have some room, but not much and the lose of wiggle room is
diminishing exponentially. A careful study would show that we live on
the teetering edge of complete annihilation, and have for sometime.
Just in this country we have the capacity, by a simple accident, to
wipe us all out. I'm not real happy with that maintenance crew that is
likely to have 9 out of ever ten on it running around our various
facilities with that kind of potential.
We get little warnings all the time. I'm not going to list them as I
know I could get some visitors if I started doing that. Some folks
already have by way of babbling on Usenet.
So to answer your question, at this time the non-spanking cultures
(those die with the people...as I've never found a non-spanking
culture that disappeared as such by going to spanking as a
parenting
practice) don't survive, possibly, because we the spanking ones
surround them.

You said yourself that we outnumber them. 90+% spank on this
planet.

So spanking cultures are better adapted.

If you say so. I don't see raw survival as a predictor of the future
survival. It could mean we were just lucky. And given the degradation
of the environment (and this isn't about tree hugging) things are not
boding well. I once thought we could get rid of nuclear energy before
it killed us. I was young and underestimated the hubris of man.
It's those spanked kids grown up and never developed beyond the
foolish belief in their immortality. That's way people who see death
coming at them swiftly say the their language equivalent of our
"****!"

It means "I was wrong, I CAN die." Typical "spanked child" neurosis
self protection. They can't look death in the face and understand that
behaviors DO have consequences. They spent their childhoods focused on
the artificial consequences laid on by parents. Hence, out of touch
with reality.
They didn't take the "risk",

So taking the risk of spanking our children will improve the odds
of
our survival?

If we were to follow the logic of your "observation" based research!
That isn't what I observed.

Am I reading you correctly?

Yup!

I wouldn't, as you do, want to put words or meanings into another's
statement or claim, than they intend.

So:

Is spanking our children likely to improve or diminish the odds for
survival?
Where in the World is Doan?

Are we, for survival, required to spank our children?
Where in the World is Doan?

While I deplore that you have once again revealed your character by
diversion from the question, "where is the line between spanking
and
abuse" I celebrate that you have introduced a truly important
question
to the mix yourself.

What a study that would be. Now if we could get half the planet's
people to be non-spankers (I'd settle for a third before I
die...but
won't make it of course) we could have a really objective research
project.

We could find enough non-spankers, and break them down into
categories, punitive alternatives to spanking, non-punitive
alternatives, laizzefaire, etc.

We only have to look at cultures that survived! ;-)
What for, if you are correct. It would not be worth the looking.
Cockaroaches rule? Naw, not for me.
Doan
snip....my what a lot of my claims you chose not to
answer...hmmmmm?

Kane

Flushed! ;-)

Nooooooo.... Finally embarrassed? ):_

Doan

Kane

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:57:34 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

snip..............


I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I
don't need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that
explained.

Childish, Kane! ;-)

Diversion, Doan?

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by
the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither".
What
logic!

Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither"
was
exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.

What's that again? IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH? :-)

No, putting yours back together for you.

I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I
admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult
for
you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is
obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the
"reasonable person."

I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said
"neither".
Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking". Please show me
how is that proper English???

Nonsense as usual, spiraling into evasive childishness. You are so
easily caught.

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive
terms.

LOL! They are not stupid!

All of "they" or some of "they?" That thing with plurals is
certainly
a challenge for you.

ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are.

Are you claiming that "they" then are "all" not stupid? That would be
stupid of you, given that you have done considerable work to cast
doubt on the validity of their studies, even to the point of bringing
the totally ingenuous spoutings of medial researcher whose major
complaint is that they don't "experiment" like his discipline. A major
yuk.

Then you go on shortly after, in your redunancy, to demand studies
that examine the efficacy of non CP methods that meet the same
standards of validity and science that YOU JUST POSTED THE GOOD
DOCTORS REFUTATION OF...and you use those same, NOW compromised
studies to support claims of yours.

That old duplicitous, "gotta have it both ways" silliness that is
theme for you.

Sound like the weather
in Colorado must have freezed your brain. Try sunny California! :-)

You know perfectly well I live in neigher place. You've recently been
right here. Enjoy the visit? I did....R R R

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines"
parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear,
humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile
hall with the children of families that don't use pain parenting?

Where do you get that?

Avoidance. I "get that" from your sudden romp into

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

when I was discussing the use of the term CP that tends to disguise
all the truly vicious things done to children in the name of "loving
discipline."

You just gave a credibility demonstration in who is running from who
in the debates here.

It's NOT other posters that run from you, Artful Dodger. It's you that
run even within the posts themselves. You demonstrate it in nearly
every post you post.

Now, if you wish to argue that the term CP isn't a bit diverting from
the truth, a kind of PC term for torture of children, be my
guest...but it's an opinion, not a exploration of the vagaries of
junvenile penology.

Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to
rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming
more
and more directed away from punishment models?

So juvenile hall is NOT punishment???

Are you completely blind? Where does "more directed away from
punishment models" say punish is missing? I states clearly that I am
aware there is punishment and I recognize that rehab is moving away
from that model.

Are you insane...wait...wrong question. When did you GO insane?

Maybe you are going for the Pity Vote. Damned if I can figure out how
far you'll go in deception before you are truly nuts.

And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted
to
you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply
denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.

Show me the data. I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN!

You are insane., I showed you that you were using violent crime
without accounting for crime. Violence to children doesn't just
produce violent acting out...it up's their overall crime rate.

Do you NEVER tired of posting from your faulty memory or lying?

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on
your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar
with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be,
as
it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite
aware
of the limits of social science studies.

You are wising up! Good!

No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I'm not
doing
well, but I have a great deal of persistence.

But you admitted to being stupid! ;-)

Absolutely. Everyone is stupid at times. ARE you claiming you are NOT?

After the nonsense you have been posting for years? And the exhibition
you've been putting on for me that past few days?

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood
logical
defenses and arguments.

I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of
invectives,
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)

The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone
that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.

I know, including lying!

I have clearly posted, even in this very post, absolutely
incontrovertible proof of your lying, or your mental incapacity.

YOU have not posted a thing that shows I'm lying. Show me.

Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom
and putdowns you use?

ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like
you
and Steve. You know, let you taste your own ****s! ;-)

Oh, I see. The moral highground goes to the little liar then. Thanks
for the clarity.

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other
than
in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest
answer
to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend
there
is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to
decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what
"reasonable"
doublt is?

Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for
others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make
before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking
them.

What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?

That's why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor
charges
being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct.

My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that
backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and
admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under
consideration....

Weasel words again. Are you so dishonest??? ;-)

I am claiming that your answer to The Ouestion, "reasonable
standards," is useless to the need I pointed out for an answer to The
Question. I am showing you WHY that is so. Parents to NOT have the
backups for using that standard, no judge, no jury, no police training
in the use of deadly force, or force.

No, point out to me what is weasely, or deceptive, or avoiding, or in
any way dishonest in my paragraph.

You have done this for years when you are cornered.

Parents cannot use "reasonable standards" as a measure of where the
line is in stopping before injury using CP.

If so you would have no difficulty in pointing that stoping place
scientifically. Reasonable standards isn't a measure, it is a part of
a much more complex group problem solving practice.

You have done it again. ... your are completely refuted and all you
can do is accuse the opponent of being dishonest.

You done this to Chris when you were cornered, you've done it LaVonne,
you've done it to Alborn, and in these past days you have exposed
yourself publically again and again.

....is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by
choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand,
with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about
spanking."

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

No. You just tried to weasel! ;-)

If you think so you can show then where I have done so. All those
resources for decision making by the use of "reasonable standards" are
not available to the parent before they have erred and end up in the
hands of the police, CPS, and the courts.

Hence, little boy, it is YOU that is trying, and sadly failing, to
weasel.

I cannot solve complex problems without the time and resources, often
computational, without assistance. If I have the time, I can do it,
but the child is gone...grown up, or escaped the punishment I had in
mind, or so far chronologically past the event the punishment would be
abusive on that alone. If I have all the resources for computing in
place, in this instance juries, judge, police, then THEY will take the
time.

"reasonable standards" fails on practicality, just as your "make up
your own mind" does. It fails to fit the need of the questioning
parent. Dangerously.

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

You should take your own advice!

What a pompous ass.

I've have brought you by the scruff of the neck numerous times in this
discussion, from your scampering up trees, racing down byways, bolting
out your constructed escape hatches, simply to see you try yet another
simplistic bamboozler.

This statement wasn't advice...read it. It's a request I'll repeat for
the terminally cowardly little thug:

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

Answer the question, or admit you can't.

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their
choice.

Absolutely!

And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on
where
I'm going.

"life" or "live"? You going to the seventh plant!

You are going to Grammar Nanny me now? The most ancient ploy in
Usenet...and you'd USE it that boldy instead of answering The
Question. You are more stuck that even I thought you were.

The parents, you ponderous pile of ****ant puke, have to live with
their decision after seeing you have blithely fought against every
alternative and all counter arguments to spanking. They will be
strongly influenced to spank.

You are not telling the to make up their own mind. You are simply
saying "I won't be responsible."

And, by your arguments against alternatives to CP, including the one
of simply not doing it, you have set yourself up as pro-spank.

When I see you mount arguments as vociferously against Dobson,
Lazelere, Baumrind and other apologists and supporters of spanking,
including those people that come here that adocate it, or apologize
for it, I'll consider you approaching ethical behavior.


The difference between us is that you lack the morals and
conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)

For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already
damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

What?
For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

I asked you where the precise guidelines are, The Question, and you
ask what I am talking about, then repeat the what when I tell what I
am talking about.

Your tail is about to disappear.

The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or
abuse
except by their EFFECTS.

Exactly! How else?

So if you beat someone until something breaks all the efforts before
that break was spanking?

It's getting rather obvious that you are cornered like the weasel you
are and are throwing out anything that you think will slow down the
end.

What is injury to one child is little to another. What might take
moments to do in fit of anger by a parent may be also done by less
vigoros and sudden CP over a longer time. The damage to the mind is
difficult to assess at all.

Shall parents spank then setting aside these dangers?.

If you have found otherwise I'd be most pleased to be advised. I
have
done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The Question
in
any statute or policy I've uncovered.

Post one and we will discuss. If you are that stupid then please
don't
that others are too. :-)

Nonsense. I have already told you that none apply. If you wish to find
one that does...go and get it yourself.
Post it, we'll discuss it in light of its usefulness to a parent about
to spank.

Of if you do not wish to answer The Question, speak right up and stop
the dance.

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes,
that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between
"reasonable
force" and "excessive force".

And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot
refuse
to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force"
and
be hired and retained as a LEO.

Really??? Show me!

No, you show us what "reasonable" means. You used it. To just keep
parroting yourself and saying it over is not a "standard" that parents
can use.

If you do not know what reasonable means in terms of a useful measure
that would give I high probability of a parent not hurting their child
should they spank, then you cannot defend the "make up your own mind"
statement you offer.

They do not have the information to do that and meet the criteria they
claim they wish when they come to this ng.

They say they do not hurt their children and they do not want, but
millions do hurt their children.

Each, of course, has proven THEY did not use a reasonable standard,
but had you asked them before they spanked they would and do defend
that they know the child best and are reasonable and loving parents.

I understand they also face some of the same consequential
incentives
that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect,
prisoner,
or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child
would
likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities,
from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and
demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and
imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.

LOL! Show me where a parent can shoot a child and defend it as
"reasonable force"!

A diversion. I did not defend the use of the standard for parenting.
YOU did. My point, clearly, is the risk to the user, not the risk to
the child in my example.

You continue to dodge. You continue to not answer The Question by
arguing the elements of your attempted answer, and bring up irrelevant
or even challenges that are against your own claim.

No matter which end of the spectrum you come from, the obvious example
you tried to divert with, shooting the child, to not CP at all,
somewhere along that line lies the claim of spanking parents, and your
willingness to let them "make up their own mind" wher eit will not be
dangerous...or so they claim... and you defend.

Where is that area? Where does it change to risk of harm sufficient
for a reasonable person to decide to go or no go.

one's and zeros, Doan. If you could even come close to the defining
line I'd be more than satisfied.

All you need is to consider the variables. Compute some force, speed,
etc. Calculate the psychology of the child, and viola, you are home
free with an answer that could make your rich and famous.

Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own
mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?

And they can get away with it???

They get caught every time???????????????

Of course they can. I doubt that every spanker that becomes a beater
gets caught and suffers the legal consequences, and some even kill
their children, and don't get caught. Some get caught and it can't be
proven they were competent to decide on punishment modes, and that's
the saddest of all.

Without asking, with little or no ability to assess the capacity
emotionally, developmently, psychologically, you say, "let them make
up their own mind."

I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers,
but
they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most
of
the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly
legal and have been for some time in all but one state.

And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly
protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm
and
no in parental disciplining.

Same with the police use of "reasonable force".

The police are trained. Do a google. It's a massive industry, traing
police in the use of reasonable force. And still THEY kill people they
rightly shouldn't have. The line is so frought with variables that it
is a constant problem for public safety and the officers that work to
perserve that safety.

Now if you want to take on The Question for the police, you just ring
up the LAPD and let us know their response.

And remember, reasonable for them has a very very bad result when they
move into that margin of error problem.

I contend that is very much the problem for parents, and you create
more for them by blithely spouting crap, and excusing yourself with a
lighthearted declaration.

And what percentage of
parents misuse force, Kane? 1%, 5%, 10%???

I'm not interested in answering demographic inqueries while adressing
a problem not related. If, when you have answered The Question you
wish to bring it up again, please do. It deserves and examination of
some proabably 400k cases per year to ask exactl that question. I do
know that some states have the data at hand and publish it
yearly...but that is NOT relevant to The Question.

The parent, a single parent coming to this ng, wants to know about HIS
or HER particular decision making, not our sometimes grandeous
exploration of the big picture.

The Question, Doan. Just the little Question.

So tell us, Doan...if everyone else in the world you keep bringing
up
cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their
child,
and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to
"do
not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that
answer
The Question?

Because most parents have common sense!

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 800K a year do not, apparently..abuse
and neglect. Claims that another's common sense gives you the moral
right to tell them to go ahead and decide on their own whether or not
to risk injury and harm, even death, to their child has a hollow ring
to it.

And they have proven through
out history that they did a good job!

That is your opinion not adequately born out by the facts. History
shows we do not do well by each other or our home. And this isn't a
large picture question. It is a matter for each parent, regardless of
capacity or education that comes to this ng and watches us engage the
spanking - non-spanking question.

Are you suggesting they must
get a license before they can have kids???

Why would you go there? It does not answer The Question, or even begin
to. Diversion.

On the other hand, is there a law in your area that requires a dog
license? Do you have to have a permit to build a house? What would be
extraordinary about asking people to show some level of knowledge and
competence before having children?
'
We do it in an informal way, some backed by formal institutions.
Marraige and age limits on it. Involving others in the processes
surrounding child birth, and rearing. Among humans it is common to
have grandparental interferrence...really it amounts to oversite.

You are appealing to emotions praying that someone will come to your
rescue with a loud indignant outcry, aren't you.

But I don't think it's coming...at least not from any but the
nutcases.

More than one family has wished the younger generation had gotten some
parenting skills before having children. When school budgets were
better many highschools did just that...have programs in family living
skills..which included child care methods including discipline...want
to bet they didn't teach spanking? All you have to do is call and find
out.

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they
would
wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return
very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Who are they?

Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on
The
Question.

There hundreds of book on parenting the last time I was at a
bookstore.
Are you suggesting that most parents are stupid?

Yes. Some are not only stupid, that is of low intelligence...and
that's a fact jack, not a slam on parent...humans do not all come wiht
your superior intellect. Some are just ignorant of their ignorance.
They don't know they don't know so they don't go to find those books.
Some are damaged by the childhoods they have. I'm not sure which
demographic posed the most threat to children, but I'd tend to bet on
the last one...the damaged by childhoods of their own.

Fortunately for us, and for you in this debate, a great many parents
are none of the above. But we aren't concerned with those.

Most of those, with little time to waste, don't come to this ng
looking for anything. The ones that do seem to fall into one of the
above categories, or the one I believe is the most dangerous of all:

We have seem here. The things they say about children and children's
motives are beyond belief. They are so far from the facts it is
sickening to look at their words and know they are going to parent a
child.

And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?

Parents?

The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof
though.

I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and
it
is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff,
and
legislatures spend considerable time on the problem....that parents
can simply ignore...as they so often do with your encouragement by
distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and
the
posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting.

So parents are so stupid that cannot be trusted to make up their own
mind???

Most people can make up their mind. That's not brain surgergy. The
problem we are addressing, though I'm feeling increasingly lonely, are
those people that can't be trusted to make them up correctly. That IS
something of a problem. But you are attempting to be inclusive again,
when it is some that are, not all.

You are pretty desperate, obviously. Are you catching your breath for
another run at The Question, or are you going to stick it out with
"reasonable standards" though you've failed to defend that as a
measure?

Or are you just shifting back and forth hoping for something else to
open up you can dive for and escape?

You could try hanging yourself. I'd probably give up on asking you The
Question. But as long as you are here and not babbling too much more,
I'll assume that you assume I'm not going to stop asking The Question.

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well
as
DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures
to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and
spanking.

Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?

I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for
you
as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The
Question.

I have already looked up the statistics, Kane.

That's nice. Then why did you ask me?

You are refusing to show
me the data because that woudld prove that you are LYING!

No, I simply haven't looked them up. I used a very loose term,
"massive numbers."
In matters of injury and death to child I start at 1 and there is no
number along the way that changes my mind about the massie label. And
you?

Besides, that argument would be about the reasonableness of The
Question. I think it reasonable to ask you in the light of your "let
them make up their own minds," don't you?

And you STILL aren't answering The Question, just dancing and dodging,
twirling in a fuzzy blur of ever decreasing of weasel tail up your own
asshole.

If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access.

I have. IT IS FAR LESS THAN 1%!!!

Okay, that's nice. It's about time you did your own research. Are you
going to make claims or are you going astound us with the tiny little
number that represents.

Let me explain something about The Question, before you get carried
away.

I did not ask it for a policy matter. Programs are not going to be
based on it (at this time). I ask it for one parent, and one parent
only.

That hypothetical parent that has come and has gone and will come
again to this ng and watch you and I. One of, if we are at all
responsible and reasonable people, or both, needs to come up with an
answer to that question they bring: "where, if I spank, should I stop
to keep from injuring my child?"

Now I know they won't really use those words all, but it's heavily
implied in their arguments and questions, and you acknowledge that by
mentioned the large numbers of books on parenting that are available
to the smart ones.

Your percentage of far less than one is very likely far short of
reality because it's going ot have legal limits on it and it's going
to miss a great many abuses that lead to injury and death. Have you
noticed how often bodies of long dead children are showing up these
days?

I sometimes dread going for hikes in my mountains. It saddens me so to
know that they can be dumping grounds for the mistakes you may have a
moral involvement in with your dismissal of your responsibility but
your vigorous defense of CP...and don't try that **** with me or
anyone else that you don't defend it.

You've branded yourself over an over again a conscienceless liar on
that issue.

So, confine yourself to answering The Question, with the understanding
that I'll only go down your little byroads when it serves my purpose,
as it just did.

So, hip boy, want to contribute the numbers to humanity, or just hold
them as a ploy for avoidance?

Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse
after injuring their child, but I don't think anyone here would,
even
your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so.

Excuse are easy to make, Kane!

You teach me that every day I'm here.

They've never been easy for me. I forget sometimes how easy they are
for others. Chalk it off to chronic naivete'.

You are stupid to believe their veracity,
are you?

No, I'm not stupid. That should be obvious by my bringing them up as a
factor in The Question question. They are a factor in the need for a
standard so they have its vagueness as an excuse. Didn't you get that
from what I said?

What excuse do they use to justify neglecting their children?

Each other. Poverty, though they seem to have enough for a quarter bag
a day. Domestic violence (one of the few I'll buy into...beaten
adults, like beaten children....tend to lose the power of self
determination..and it's very read...adults become childlike), Their
mother-in-law, their "SO"s mother, their "SO"s father - brother -
sister - Teddy bear. It can get pretty pathetic.

Often the truth is pretty ordinary. Many hurt their children out of
shear inability to parent. Just don't have the will to do it. But hey
have to pretend because of societal pressure. Very sad indeed. For
all, and mostly for the children.

Some are so sick they feed off their children emotionally and these
are the ones that scream their love the loudest when their children
are taken....denying they raped them, sold them for drugs, and made
this child's life hell with unpredictability.

Enjoying the byway? I know I am.

That is what make up most of the child-abuse cases, Kane!

Neglegence? Yes I know. It runs around half or a little under in most
states. The reason it appears to be more is that the abuse cases
almost always have a neglect element. It's the overlap that drives the
number on neglect up. So about oh say a half are both neglect and
abuse and about a third or so are abuse alone. Sometimes less in some
states.

I don't think I've seen national numbers in many months. It's not
something that holds my interest so I lose track.

Neglect, the last time I remember seems to have a higher incidence of
fatality. Seems logical. Is that what you found?

Do you always just spout a number and fail to put up the source?

It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental
processing...to excuse bad behavior.
In other words, the spanked (90+%) of the population, has learned
to
lie very well to protect themselves from the consequences of their
actions.

The spanked LIE? ALL of THEM??? And the "never-spanked" like you
don't
lie, right? ;-)

I have a surprise for you. Everyone lies.

Those that say they don't...wellllll, let's just let you out on that
one, okay. There's only one hair left showing now.

You are a prime example.

LOL! Do you lie? ;-)

Yes. Absolutely. I did this evening. I told my wife that I really
liked to back off an give her daughers time with her on her birthday,
but the truth was I wanted to be with her more...lucky me, that live
in their own homes, and she and I in ours.

I lied to my aging mother because she is becoming confused...at 90
that's not uncommon. She said she could leave and get an apartment of
her own and do just fine, and I said, "Of course you can mom." She
can't of course. But she lived so independently all her life I don't
want right now, remotely, to engage her in a discussion of plaining
for her best interests.

Shall I have her call you for a cheery "make up your own mind"?

Did yah tell the cop, when she stopped you, because you knew damn
well, "Yes, Officer, 88 mph..that's it, or maybe 89"?

Sure you do Doan.

Here in this ng though Doan, you greatly surpass the social acceptable
norms of untruths for social grease. Here you expand the bounds of
veracity as few have attained before.

And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do
you

see
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at
Sweden
before and after 1979?

If you wish to go down that road please do, but know at the end of
the
long evasive trail, I will be waiting here with The Question.

You can't handle the truth! :-)

Odd, it's not only right here I posted some URLs to it just a day ago.
Or maybe two...woudn't want to lie... R R R R


It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails
on
the
incidence of abuse.

Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning
spanking?

I cannot say, and neither can you, but I can tell you that
immediately
there was huge increase in the reporting of child abuse....and
services rendered to child and family. The purpose was not to
reduce
the reporting of child abuse, but the incidence of it in the
future.

Show me the data!

I posted the arguments recently. The assumption that child abuse rates
when up has been meet by the truth that child abuse REPORTING rates
went up. Because child abuse in the form of beatings and "spankings"
was a norm...an extreme norm, beyond even our own, it wasn't reported
and didn't have to be under the law.

Now it does.

It isn't rocket science, Doan, nor is it a bolt hole for you to avoid
The Question. Everyone knows you're dancing with these questions.

Enjoy. I am.

And what are we seeing?

Dr. Durant explains it well:
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm

Why don't you post the actual study instead of a "FILTERED" version
from a anti-spanking site, Kane? You do know how to think for
yourself,
don't you?

I don't have access to the study. If you do would you like to post it?

Is there something wrong with the statements of Dr. Durant you wish to
address?

How will they effect the topic, The Question?

You brought it up unbidden...or wish to use something I said to
quickly expand into a cloud of smoke for yourself. Do you think you
are clever? Are you aware that people reading, can think and see what
you are attempting?

If you are having trouble noticeing, I'll help. The see you haven't
answered The Question.

"Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse
The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily
based
on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case
that
reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since
the
1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the
issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to
rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied
to
shifts in public awareness. "


Then for a lesson in "doublethink" about as good as I've run across
in
my lifetime, even better than your own, try reading this:

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html


Are you this devious? Where did it say that "reporting rates" is the
cause of the increase?

IT doesn't. That's why I labelled it doublethink. There is refusal,
not unlike your own, to connect to real world conditions. It's common
in the anti spank crowd. And they project it on everyone around them
much to our dismay. I see children with deep injuries, I hear the
excuses of of the parents who were "spanking," then I see you say,
"let them make up their own mind" and you appear out of touch with
reality.

Yet the insane denial goes on, and you a big pusher of it.

What would be devious about calling the citation source guilty of
doublethink?

"Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal
punishment
(hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas
the
child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item
showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later
(1985)
American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey
concluded
that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to
this
measure."

That fits in very nicely with the situation Dr. Durant claimed. We
have been reporting child abuse, for decaded longer than Sweden. When
they started up reporting it more...it follows the rate would
increase. That it surpasses ours goes to the very issue of them being,
before the law, extremely harsh with their children.

That of course isn't going to change overnight either.

The arguement is very strange indeed if it's meant to refute the
concept of non-spanking.

A complete denial of the fact that reporting something isn't the
doing
of that thing. And later, the passive voice reporting that death
rates
for children, always low in Sweden, have not changed..in other
words
the claim that not spanking was going to be bad for Sweden didn't
materialize.

Are you reading the same thing that I am reading?

Yes. The existing child abuse in Sweden was not being reported. Note,
death rates stayed the same. Why didn't they go up if the raising rate
of reported abuse went up? Because there was no increase in abuse,
just the reporting of it.

It's not rocket science, Doan.

"Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative
comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the
average of
the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was
49%
higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates
(Larzelere,
1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original
findings
were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a
temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in
Sweden to
disciplining children without the use of spanking."

All they got was
more attention to the already severe problem with
UNREPORTED child abuse. Talk with older swedes about parenting
methods
of the past. They were an equal too if not the surpassers of the
Germans.

Speculation again, Kane!

They seem to agree with me in Europe. A couple of spanking defenders
don't. I don't let their extreme thinking errors remove the realworld
considerations.

If I'm counting pebbles in the stream in a perfunctory manner, with a
very weak mandate to count because the pebbles have always been there,
the number per foot count is going to be very low....if I suddenly get
orders to count ever people per running foot there is going to be a
whole lot higher rate of pebbles per foot in my tally.

Real world, Doan, not the world you fabricate as an excuse for your
diminished conscience.

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of
alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the
bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT???

That was MY point, Doan. Regressive fallacy number 4.032. Don't you
ever improve your ploy repertoire. You are so easy to spot.

My point was that parents lie about their "spanking" and call it
that
when it is in fact abusive and damaging to the child. Do you think
that at any point in time from the birth of their child to the
moment
they were nailed by CPS they told anyone the truth about their
"spanking" practices?

And they will tell you the truth if you banned spanking?

No. Why would they. The point of banning spanking isn't to get more
confessions, is it?
But those who are spanking, and or abusing are going to come under
scrutiny much more if after the law passes there is a requirement to
improve the counting methods..precisely what happened in Sweden.

You don't study these things objectively, Doan. It's pretty obvious
you for them trying to find things that will support your theory,
backwards science as it were, that makes you cherry pick, just like in
bad science. Be objective, read everything, hold it up against what
goes on in the real world.

Pre law, poor collecting of abuse data. Post law, big time pressure
and a good response, to more diligent counting.

Low number before, high numbers after. ...honest, not rocket science.

How about
the "he fell" excuse? Have you heard that?

My info is all second hand. I have heard the same for many years
though. I read court transcripts, second hand in my mind. I read
studies, third hand or more hand. It adds up.

And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?

I don't recall saying that, but I suspect the incidence of child
abuse, were the use of CP outlawed, would result over time as
people
learned other methods of parenting....OR LOST THEIR children to
those
that do use non pain parenting, YES, the that kind of abuse would
reduce.

Any evidence of that in, not just Sweden, but any of the other
countries
that banned spanking??? Come on, Kane. Here is your chance to prove
your assertion. Here is your chance to convince me and others!
DON'T
BLOW IT!

Why do you dance and shout and everything have to be a school boy dare
with you Doan. Are you that frightened?

I haven't made a claim that anti spanking laws made abuse rates go
down. I said I suspect. I'm realistic. I know, right up close from
treating spanking victims, now insidious and life long such
experiences can be. Those boys I worked with will always be high risk
for abusing their own children. We gave them every tool for self
control and an appreciation for themselves we could, and we worked
diligently on empathy building for them, but they were spanked. That
doesn't just go away.

It could be a generation or two to see the significant changes in
populations that outlaw spanking. Abuse is intergenerational even if
one can stop it entirely. It's like substance abuse. A family can be
clean for generations, but the family interactions can still be based
on those learned generations ago to support the boozer or druggie and
THOSE will make the family look like it has abuse dynamics...and of
course, the risk is high they will, or they will substitute other
unpleasant counterproductive behaviors ...manipulative, low trust for
each other, scapegoating...you know the kinds of things you do. so
much here.

Same with spanking. Or abuse or neglect.

Using the absolute, "stop" of course, is your silly attempt to one
action fiddle the language.

I din't say it in the absolute!

You didn't "mean" it in the absolute? Okay.

However I notice that that is entirely unconnected to our thread of
debate, the subject is not in it.

I don't think you can support your implication that I WANT to ban
spanking. I consider it a second best solution to the voluntary
reduction by parents who will stop listening to their fear filled
childhood denial, and to you and your encouragement to spank.

The best way is to prove to them that the non-cp alternatives are
effective and better.

No, actually it isn't. One cannot convince a spanker or those from a
spanking background using "facts." The don't respond to "facts," and
will squirm in great spasm of panic to avoid facts.

What might give them a chance to make a more balanced decision is to
admit that non-spanking begins with the premise, and it's not
refutable...there is not risk of injury or death to the child by not
hitting them.

From there one goes to what works better. They aren't going to just
try it. That went by the wayside long ago, as a possibility.

90% of the people have been spanked. They have defenses in place to
keep it. Long convulted arguments such as you indulge in are dead on
to keep them spanking or convince them to start. YOU aren't neurtral
and I'm not lying.

I encourage parents to make up their own
mind.

YOU say it. You do not encourage it or you would work to maintain a
neutral objective assessment of both sides. You WORK at it. You don't
even consider the other side. You never attack the premises of the
spanking advocates, or question their arguments. They have NO evidence
that long term use of CP is harmless...and you won't admit it.

It's so obvious that it makes you, and those like you an instant fool
to anyone that doesn't immediately take shelter for their childish
fear of loss of control and power in relationship (a gift from
childhood) and your endless babble convinces them long before you say,
"make up your own minds."

You are lying when you said I encourage parents to spank!

Do you deny that you fail to attack prospank arguments with the vigor
you attack anti spank arguments? Do you deny that you fail to
recognise that spanking has risks outside most parents capacity to
gauge in all instances with all children?

Do you deny that you run when confronted with anecdotal evidence but
will present it yourself in defense of spanking as a choice?

Do you deny that you have claimed that using non cp has risks, as you
claim shows in studies, but fail to do the same for using CP?

STOP LYING!

You should.

I point to the reasons. I don't just declare.

You point to what reasons? Reasons to make up their own mind without
adequate knowledge of the injury issues in CP?

Have YOU ever cited anyone to Riak's page? You have cited people to
pro spank pages.

When I say you are a liar, I am not saying you don't say what you
say...you do say "let them make up their own minds." But, you are a
liar when you claim that you give them the equal amount of information
from both side so the issue.

Even they know you aren't neutral.

On the other hand I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, and
the
fastest progress, just as we saw with women's suffrage and the
civil
right movement, may well lie with a change in the law. It seems to
be
the case in the countries that have outlawed CP.

I am saddened, but not ashamed that I could be wrong. I wish it
were
otherwise, and loving parents didn't themselves have to be
threatened
to awareness...but if that's what it takes I'll be able to take a
break and end my reasoned appeals to conscience.

Conscience, and its development, often being the first casualty of
pain parenting.

This is one of the self admitted "stupid" things I do. I trust
parents
to a far greater degree than they warrant by the evidence of their
behavior.

SO YOU DON'T TRUST PARENTS???

What a silly ass thing to say. And a school boy yell too.

You are lying when you ask such obviously accusatory rhetorical
questions. Your loss of your self in this is exposure of yourself.

Are their parents that injure and kill their children with
"discipline?"
I trust parents to be fallible humans and have never said otherwise.
Some will err. In an effort to offer them a chance to look at another
way with far less risk...near zero....and replace it with not just the
ceasing of hitting, but with the chance to learn more effective
ways...I trust them to do well when they try it.

Nearly all do, except those who stay locked into their pain and
control punishment model thinking and try to apply non-punitive
methods.

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed
up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or
the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her
on
the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop
crying
so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've
heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry,
I
don't
see the logic, Kane.

No, I was not discussing that. Are you using regression or
aggression
logical fallacies today? I am explaining why I know that parents,
in
answer to YOUR diverting question, do NOT know how to limit
themselves
in many instances.

You are using a small number of parents who abused their kids and
generalize that to the population at large. That is a fallacy!

For what? The Question? No, in fact I've carefully confined The
Question to what one parent wants to know. You are again, just as I
accuse you of above, trying to expand the arguement to beyond where I
made it.

Where did I say The Question had to address gross demographic
concerns. It might do that, but at this time I don't care. I am one
theoretical parent waiting for this babbling wandering idiot to get
over thousands of lines of diversion and answer The Question as it was
asked, or get off the pot and admit he cannot.

Does it ever occur to you their may be another answer this problem of
risk...that we simply show the one who is here to ask ALL the
altrnatives in a simple fashion with out all these diversions you
trough in the instant the question is asked by them announcing their
presence?

You may be too short, in morals, metaphorically speaking, to see
over
the thickets along your diverted argument, but I am not. We are
still
talking about The Question.

Oops! Resorting to ad-hom again.

Ooops! Using it to avoid The Question.

Do you look at yourself in the mirror
yet? ;-)

Do you really think my use of an ad hom is sufficient excuse,
ethically, to NOT continue to address the question?

Would you answer it if I asked without ad hom?

No, it's obvious by now you wouldn't because I have, repeatedly and
you still dance.

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million
reports
of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate
half
are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child
physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.

Why would you make such a demand?

Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush
along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about
The
Question.

What number have you provided to prove your claim that crime is down
because we are spanking less???

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about The
Question.

I was not discussing numbers. YOU were. I enaged in it with you. I no
longer wish to. I am not in the business of defending my numbers. Some
other time perhaps and you may naw race about and claim I ran from
debate...but remember, google is watching and I'm quite comfortable
with quoting the archives when some pennyante little coward starts
lying.

YOU have been running from ME and that question was simply one in a
long line of attempts to avoid The Question.

This document is now only one quarter of its orginal length, even with
our current posting. I am taking out the rest on the grounds you have
answered the question here or in the rest of the document.

You have dodged, weaved, changed the subject, and all to avoid the
truth:

You lie directly. You lie by omission. You lie by artifice.

You lie.

Answer the question as asked. All other questions you have brought up
I will consider at another time and place at my pleasure.

You are of of course free to do the same, even with this, The
Question.

But if you leave, you leave the field before you've done with The
Question.

I declare I have run, for now, from debating all the misleading,
dodging, bull**** you have heaved up (much of which has been debated
before with you to no end by me and others). Now show your mettle.
Answer The Question.

Best wishes

Kane

On 8 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:57:34 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 6 Dec 2003, Kane wrote:

snip..............

Can't stand your own, Kane??? ;-)


I answered this below. While I do go for humor some of the time I
don't need a second Banana. Talk with The Plant if you need that
explained.

Childish, Kane! ;-)

Diversion, Doan?

Being stupid, Kane? ;-)

Those studies were often of the polite artifice, "CP." Sometimes
"spanking" would be referred to, but I've always been annoyed by
the
use of the word "CP" and it's intrusion into the discussion.

So they did used "spanking" but you said they used "neither".
What
logic!

Then you could assume, if you understand English, that "neither"
was
exclusive of neither. They talked of both spanking and CP.

What's that again? IS THAT BROKEN ENGLISH? :-)

No, putting yours back together for you.

So what's the meaning of "neither"?

I know this language can be hard for the non-native speaker, and I
admire your persistence in learning it, but it makes it difficult
for
you to be seen as posting honestly when you assume so much that is
obviously not true in the standard understanding of English, to the
"reasonable person."

I asked you if they use "spanking" or "beating" and you said
"neither".
Then you go on and said that they did use "spanking". Please show me
how is that proper English???

Nonsense as usual, spiraling into evasive childishness. You are so
easily caught.

HA! HA! HA! You are the one who is doing the evading! What is the
meaning of "neither", Kane?

That choice of "CP" avoids having to use real words, such as
"beating," "slapping," "paddling," "whipping," "strapping,"
"switching," and all those more colorful and more descriptive
terms.

LOL! They are not stupid!

All of "they" or some of "they?" That thing with plurals is
certainly
a challenge for you.

ALL, unless you can prove that some of them are.

Are you claiming that "they" then are "all" not stupid? That would be
stupid of you, given that you have done considerable work to cast
doubt on the validity of their studies, even to the point of bringing
the totally ingenuous spoutings of medial researcher whose major
complaint is that they don't "experiment" like his discipline. A major
yuk.

Evading again, Kane?

Then you go on shortly after, in your redunancy, to demand studies
that examine the efficacy of non CP methods that meet the same
standards of validity and science that YOU JUST POSTED THE GOOD
DOCTORS REFUTATION OF...and you use those same, NOW compromised
studies to support claims of yours.

That old duplicitous, "gotta have it both ways" silliness that is
theme for you.

Nonsense!

Sound like the weather
in Colorado must have freezed your brain. Try sunny California! :-)

You know perfectly well I live in neigher place. You've recently been
right here. Enjoy the visit? I did....R R R

LOL! Yes, Littleton is an interesting place!

It also tends to camouflage those OTHER choice "disciplines"
parents
sometimes use to avoid spanking, but to cause pain, fear,
humiliation,
and defeat (what I mean when I write "pain based parenting.")

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

I have to ask you: are you equating those many children in juvenile
hall with the children of families that don't use pain parenting?

Where do you get that?

Avoidance. I "get that" from your sudden romp into

Then you are stupid!

Then let's outlaw them all! NO PUNISHMNET FOR ANYONE UNDER 18!
Let's get rid of juvenile halls!

when I was discussing the use of the term CP that tends to disguise
all the truly vicious things done to children in the name of "loving
discipline."

You also claime that the Maurer study is not about spanking!

You just gave a credibility demonstration in who is running from who
in the debates here.

I know. It shows! :-)

It's NOT other posters that run from you, Artful Dodger. It's you that
run even within the posts themselves. You demonstrate it in nearly
every post you post.

LOL!

Now, if you wish to argue that the term CP isn't a bit diverting from
the truth, a kind of PC term for torture of children, be my
guest...but it's an opinion, not a exploration of the vagaries of
junvenile penology.

Diversion, again! :-)

Are you aware that a considerable amount of money is dedicated to
rehabilitation of adjudicated youth? And that rehab is becoming
more
and more directed away from punishment models?

So juvenile hall is NOT punishment???

Are you completely blind? Where does "more directed away from
punishment models" say punish is missing? I states clearly that I am
aware there is punishment and I recognize that rehab is moving away
from that model.

Weaseing! :-)

Are you insane...wait...wrong question. When did you GO insane?

Are you stupid...wait...you have already admitted to that! ;-)

Maybe you are going for the Pity Vote. Damned if I can figure out how
far you'll go in deception before you are truly nuts.

You are just stupid!

And juvenile crime has been showing a downward trend, that I posted
to
you recently and you ran rather than debate it honestly? You simply
denied with the artifice of a vacation to Singapore.

Show me the data. I posted the fbi stats. YOU were the one that RAN!

You are insane., I showed you that you were using violent crime
without accounting for crime. Violence to children doesn't just
produce violent acting out...it up's their overall crime rate.

LOL! So that is why the violent crime WENT UP??? Logic and the
anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)

Do you NEVER tired of posting from your faulty memory or lying?

I haven't developed senility yet. YOU ARE! ;-)

I've never defended the Strauss study, other than to call you on
your
use of weasel words and deceptive tactics you are so familiar
with.
The fact is, as Strauss admits, the study was not meant to be,
as
it
cannot be, an experiment, but rather an observation. I am quite
aware
of the limits of social science studies.

You are wising up! Good!

No, I was wise long ago. Now my task is to wise you up. I'm not
doing
well, but I have a great deal of persistence.

But you admitted to being stupid! ;-)

Absolutely. Everyone is stupid at times. ARE you claiming you are NOT?

Absolutely, stupid! ;-)

After the nonsense you have been posting for years? And the exhibition
you've been putting on for me that past few days?

Yup! To prove that you are old, senile and STUPID!

They are not usually what I would base my own arguments against
spanking upon. I use far less complex and easily understood
logical
defenses and arguments.

I know! I see it all the time. Your argument consisted of
invectives,
put downs, calling other women "smelly-****".... ;-)

The evidence of your lie and misdirection ploy is evident to anyone
that has read my posts. My argument consists of many things.

I know, including lying!

I have clearly posted, even in this very post, absolutely
incontrovertible proof of your lying, or your mental incapacity.

LOL!

YOU have not posted a thing that shows I'm lying. Show me.

I have!

Would you say your arguments are less than persuasive by the ad hom
and putdowns you use?

ABSOLUTELY! That is why I only used them in respond to scumbags like
you
and Steve. You know, let you taste your own ****s! ;-)

Oh, I see. The moral highground goes to the little liar then. Thanks
for the clarity.

You were the one that accused me of lacking morals. Don't you remember,
old fart? ;-)

Of course they cannot actually define the difference other
than
in
most gross of descriptions. They refuse to give an honest
answer
to
where the line is between the to extremes, trying to pretend
there
is
no middle really...or it's very broad and everyone gets to
decide
themselves when a spanking passes over into abuse.

Have you ever been on jury? Did they explain to you what
"reasonable"
doublt is?

Yes, and the purpose it serves where used, does not allow for
others
to make the judgements, safely, that I ask parents to make
before
taking instruments, or their hands to children and spanking
them.

What are you talking about??? The purpose it serves can determine
whether a person live or die! Are you so stupid?

That's why there are twelve in most states with a few lessor
charges
being sat by 6. But multiples and a judge to preside and instruct.

My statement meant, if you will indulge me: is that all that
backstopping, all that redundancy, all that instruction, and
admonitions as to the seriousness of the issue under
consideration....

Weasel words again. Are you so dishonest??? ;-)

I am claiming that your answer to The Ouestion, "reasonable
standards," is useless to the need I pointed out for an answer to The
Question. I am showing you WHY that is so. Parents to NOT have the
backups for using that standard, no judge, no jury, no police training
in the use of deadly force, or force.

If it is "useless" to you, then don't use it! Let's everyone else decide
for themselves if it useful nor not.

No, point out to me what is weasely, or deceptive, or avoiding, or in
any way dishonest in my paragraph.

EVERYTHING!

You have done this for years when you are cornered.

Funny! It is you with your back to the walls! ;-)

Parents cannot use "reasonable standards" as a measure of where the
line is in stopping before injury using CP.

Who says?

If so you would have no difficulty in pointing that stoping place
scientifically. Reasonable standards isn't a measure, it is a part of
a much more complex group problem solving practice.

LOL!

You have done it again. ... your are completely refuted and all you
can do is accuse the opponent of being dishonest.

Isn't it you who accused me of lying??? Look at the mirror lately? ;-)

You done this to Chris when you were cornered, you've done it LaVonne,
you've done it to Alborn, and in these past days you have exposed
yourself publically again and again.

LOL! I am still here. Where are they? ;-)

....is NOT available to the parent or if it is they can partake by
choice of that information and caution, and reject it out of hand,
with your encouragement to "make up their own minds about
spanking."

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

No. You just tried to weasel! ;-)

If you think so you can show then where I have done so. All those
resources for decision making by the use of "reasonable standards" are
not available to the parent before they have erred and end up in the
hands of the police, CPS, and the courts.

Really! They all kept it in secret??? Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS, they are mutually exclusive! ;-)

Hence, little boy, it is YOU that is trying, and sadly failing, to
weasel.

I am a mirror. You are seeing yourself in it!

I cannot solve complex problems without the time and resources, often
computational, without assistance. If I have the time, I can do it,
but the child is gone...grown up, or escaped the punishment I had in
mind, or so far chronologically past the event the punishment would be
abusive on that alone. If I have all the resources for computing in
place, in this instance juries, judge, police, then THEY will take the
time.

LOL!!

"reasonable standards" fails on practicality, just as your "make up
your own mind" does. It fails to fit the need of the questioning
parent. Dangerously.

So we can't make up our own mind??? Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS... ;-)

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

You should take your own advice!

What a pompous ass.

Looking at the mirror again, Kane? ;-)

I've have brought you by the scruff of the neck numerous times in this
discussion, from your scampering up trees, racing down byways, bolting
out your constructed escape hatches, simply to see you try yet another
simplistic bamboozler.

Delusion!

This statement wasn't advice...read it. It's a request I'll repeat for
the terminally cowardly little thug:

Resorting to ad-hom again, Kane? Shame on you! ;-)

Now, in all fairness would you mind responding directly, not going
off
on a divergence, and answering my actual statement?

Answer the question, or admit you can't.

Already have - "reasonable standard"!

I cannot, because I'm rational and reasonable, make a defensible
demand for parents to not spank. As you say, that is their
choice.

Absolutely!

And they must life with it. And you seem to be waaaay behind on
where
I'm going.

"life" or "live"? You going to the seventh plant!

You are going to Grammar Nanny me now? The most ancient ploy in
Usenet...and you'd USE it that boldy instead of answering The
Question. You are more stuck that even I thought you were.

You used it on me! At least I have the excuse of using a foreign
language. What is yours, "never-spanked" boy? ;-)

The parents, you ponderous pile of ****ant puke, have to live with
their decision after seeing you have blithely fought against every
alternative and all counter arguments to spanking. They will be
strongly influenced to spank.

Really? Is my argument that persuasive??? ;-0
You really are stupid!

You are not telling the to make up their own mind. You are simply
saying "I won't be responsible."

Of course I am not responsible. They did make up their own mind!
Are you always this stupid???

And, by your arguments against alternatives to CP, including the one
of simply not doing it, you have set yourself up as pro-spank.

Says who?

When I see you mount arguments as vociferously against Dobson,
Lazelere, Baumrind and other apologists and supporters of spanking,
including those people that come here that adocate it, or apologize
for it, I'll consider you approaching ethical behavior.

LOL! Funny that you would be talking about ethics! ;-)


The difference between us is that you lack the morals and
conscience
to then ask them to set guidelines.

What are you talking about? The guidelines have been set in every
community! Are so stupid - again? ;-)

For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already
damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

What?
For spanking? Where? CPS? Statute? Read them. They are all about
warnings, not measurements of limits. They are about already damaging
the child and the consequences of doing so.

Show me!

I asked you where the precise guidelines are, The Question, and you
ask what I am talking about, then repeat the what when I tell what I
am talking about.

And I told you to use the "reasonable" standard.

Your tail is about to disappear.

Dogs have tail, Kane9! ;-)

The do NOT set the limit by defining a spanking vs a beating or
abuse except by their EFFECTS. Exactly! How else?

So if you beat someone until something breaks all the efforts before
that break was spanking?

LOL! Do you use the "reasonable" standard? ;-)

It's getting rather obvious that you are cornered like the weasel you
are and are throwing out anything that you think will slow down the
end.

LOL!

What is injury to one child is little to another. What might take
moments to do in fit of anger by a parent may be also done by less
vigoros and sudden CP over a longer time. The damage to the mind is
difficult to assess at all.

Shall parents spank then setting aside these dangers?.

They all have a brain and know how to think, don't they?


If you have found otherwise I'd be most pleased to be advised. I
have done exhaustive research and cannot find the answer to The
Question in any statute or policy I've uncovered. Post one and
we will discuss. If you are that stupid then please don't that
others are too. :-)

Nonsense. I have already told you that none apply. If you wish to find
one that does...go and get it yourself.
Post it, we'll discuss it in light of its usefulness to a parent about
to spank.

There you go, again. You are the one searching for the answer, not I!
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)

Of if you do not wish to answer The Question, speak right up and stop
the dance.

Already have - reasonable standard!

All they have to do is show, by their choices, and the outcomes,
that
they know where the line is between spanking and abuse.

Exactly! Just as every police must know the line between
"reasonable
force" and "excessive force".

And that police officer receives extensive training she cannot
refuse
to take, and "make up her own mind whether and how to use force"
and
be hired and retained as a LEO.

Really??? Show me!

No, you show us what "reasonable" means. You used it. To just keep
parroting yourself and saying it over is not a "standard" that parents
can use.

The majority of the people, EXCEPT YOU, are using it!

If you do not know what reasonable means in terms of a useful measure
that would give I high probability of a parent not hurting their child
should they spank, then you cannot defend the "make up your own mind"
statement you offer.

So you will make up their mind for them? Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS.... ;-)


They do not have the information to do that and meet the criteria they
claim they wish when they come to this ng.

So you are speaking for "them"?

They say they do not hurt their children and they do not want, but
millions do hurt their children.

ALL because they don't know the difference between spankinng and
beating??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS... ;-)

Each, of course, has proven THEY did not use a reasonable standard,
but had you asked them before they spanked they would and do defend
that they know the child best and are reasonable and loving parents.

LOL! And your proof is?

I understand they also face some of the same consequential
incentives
that PARENTS do not, in that the same action upon a suspect,
prisoner,
or even convicted person that parent can legally do to a child
would
likely cause punitive repercussions, of vary kinds and intensities,
from letters of correction in their personnel file, to fines and
demotions and unpaid leaves, to serious criminal charges and
imprisonment, and opening themselves to very costly civil actions.

LOL! Show me where a parent can shoot a child and defend it as
"reasonable force"!

A diversion. I did not defend the use of the standard for parenting.
YOU did. My point, clearly, is the risk to the user, not the risk to
the child in my example.

Weaseling, Kane! ;-)

You continue to dodge. You continue to not answer The Question by
arguing the elements of your attempted answer, and bring up irrelevant
or even challenges that are against your own claim.

No matter which end of the spectrum you come from, the obvious example
you tried to divert with, shooting the child, to not CP at all,
somewhere along that line lies the claim of spanking parents, and your
willingness to let them "make up their own mind" wher eit will not be
dangerous...or so they claim... and you defend.

And I am talking about "reasonable" person, not the 1% extreme cases!

Where is that area? Where does it change to risk of harm sufficient
for a reasonable person to decide to go or no go.

Ask a "reasonable person"! Ask the DA, ask your CPS agency!

one's and zeros, Doan. If you could even come close to the defining
line I'd be more than satisfied.

All you need is to consider the variables. Compute some force, speed,
etc. Calculate the psychology of the child, and viola, you are home
free with an answer that could make your rich and famous.

LOL! Are we talking with a reasonable person here?

Which of these does the parent suffer, who, in making up their own
mind, mistakenly crosses the line and injures their child?

And they can get away with it???

They get caught every time???????????????

So what is the problem?

Of course they can. I doubt that every spanker that becomes a beater
gets caught and suffers the legal consequences, and some even kill
their children, and don't get caught. Some get caught and it can't be
proven they were competent to decide on punishment modes, and that's
the saddest of all.

All because they don't know the difference between a spankinng an a
beating??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS...

Without asking, with little or no ability to assess the capacity
emotionally, developmently, psychologically, you say, "let them make
up their own mind."

So you will make up their mind for them????

I have heard of a few civil actions by adult children of abusers,
but
they are rare and difficult to bring for the very reason that most
of
the actions of a parent that are painful to a child are perfectly
legal and have been for some time in all but one state.

And that state is questionable as though it does NOT explicitly
protect the parent from charges, it does not clarify what is harm
and
no in parental disciplining.

Same with the police use of "reasonable force".

The police are trained. Do a google. It's a massive industry, traing
police in the use of reasonable force. And still THEY kill people they
rightly shouldn't have. The line is so frought with variables that it
is a constant problem for public safety and the officers that work to
perserve that safety.

So let ban it. We don't want to risk public safety, do we? ;-)


Now if you want to take on The Question for the police, you just ring
up the LAPD and let us know their response.

Isn't this a double standard, Kane? I already know the "reasonable
standard". You don't! You should be the one that go looking for it!
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive! ;-)

And remember, reasonable for them has a very very bad result when they
move into that margin of error problem.

Then you go ahead and make their mind for them, Kane! ;-)

I contend that is very much the problem for parents, and you create
more for them by blithely spouting crap, and excusing yourself with a
lighthearted declaration.

LOL!

And what percentage of
parents misuse force, Kane? 1%, 5%, 10%???

I'm not interested in answering demographic inqueries while adressing
a problem not related. If, when you have answered The Question you
wish to bring it up again, please do. It deserves and examination of
some proabably 400k cases per year to ask exactl that question. I do
know that some states have the data at hand and publish it
yearly...but that is NOT relevant to The Question.

It is if your claim is half of it is due to spanking and not knowing
the difference from a beating. And even according to the data you
privided, it is not "half" - YOU LIED! Q.E.D. ;-)

The parent, a single parent coming to this ng, wants to know about HIS
or HER particular decision making, not our sometimes grandeous
exploration of the big picture.

What parent??? The only one I see asking that question is you!

The Question, Doan. Just the little Question.

Reasonable standard, Kane! Are you so stupid!

So tell us, Doan...if everyone else in the world you keep bringing
up
cannot do to their charges legally, but a parent can to their
child,
and with no training, no set guidelines beyond the admonishment to
"do
not harm the child" and "make up your own mind," how does that
answer
The Question?

Because most parents have common sense!

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 800K a year do not, apparently..abuse
and neglect. Claims that another's common sense gives you the moral
right to tell them to go ahead and decide on their own whether or not
to risk injury and harm, even death, to their child has a hollow ring
to it.

SO YOU WILL MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEM? How about the other 99%+ that
don't abuse their kids???

And they have proven through
out history that they did a good job!

That is your opinion not adequately born out by the facts. History
shows we do not do well by each other or our home. And this isn't a
large picture question. It is a matter for each parent, regardless of
capacity or education that comes to this ng and watches us engage the
spanking - non-spanking question.

Who are these phantom parents, Kane? Most of these abusers are drugged
up to care! You are being ridiculous, Kane!

Are you suggesting they must
get a license before they can have kids???

Why would you go there? It does not answer The Question, or even begin
to. Diversion.

Already answer the question - reasonable standard!

On the other hand, is there a law in your area that requires a dog
license? Do you have to have a permit to build a house? What would be
extraordinary about asking people to show some level of knowledge and
competence before having children?
'
Children are not dogs nor houses! You seem to be suggesting that
it is ok to sterilized the mentally retarded. Can they have children
too???

We do it in an informal way, some backed by formal institutions.
Marraige and age limits on it. Involving others in the processes
surrounding child birth, and rearing. Among humans it is common to
have grandparental interferrence...really it amounts to oversite.

We already have the police and CPS to overee the problem!

You are appealing to emotions praying that someone will come to your
rescue with a loud indignant outcry, aren't you.

LOL! I am very capable of taking care of myself.

But I don't think it's coming...at least not from any but the
nutcases.

NO! Not from you! ;-)

More than one family has wished the younger generation had gotten some
parenting skills before having children. When school budgets were
better many highschools did just that...have programs in family living
skills..which included child care methods including discipline...want
to bet they didn't teach spanking? All you have to do is call and find
out.

Going off a tagent again, Kane??? ;-)

Unfortunately, much as I would wish for it, and I hope they
would
wish
as well, they are unable to establish that point of no return
very
well. In fact very badly all in all.

Who are they?

Parents, and those they might ask for guidance and information on
The
Question.

There hundreds of book on parenting the last time I was at a
bookstore.
Are you suggesting that most parents are stupid?

Yes. Some are not only stupid, that is of low intelligence...and
that's a fact jack, not a slam on parent...humans do not all come wiht
your superior intellect. Some are just ignorant of their ignorance.
They don't know they don't know so they don't go to find those books.
Some are damaged by the childhoods they have. I'm not sure which
demographic posed the most threat to children, but I'd tend to bet on
the last one...the damaged by childhoods of their own.

LOL! No "superiority" complex on your part, I see!

Fortunately for us, and for you in this debate, a great many parents
are none of the above. But we aren't concerned with those.

And you are the one to decide right, Kane? ;-)

Most of those, with little time to waste, don't come to this ng
looking for anything. The ones that do seem to fall into one of the
above categories, or the one I believe is the most dangerous of all:

And you are omniscient! You know and keep track on everyone who
frequented this newsgroup???? ;-)

We have seem here. The things they say about children and children's
motives are beyond belief. They are so far from the facts it is
sickening to look at their words and know they are going to parent a
child.

And you are the judge right, Kane? ;-)

And where is your proof of the claim that they are unable
to establish the point of no return?

Parents?

The proof is in the abuse evidence. You posited a negative proof
though.

I am saying a point of no return cannot be clearly established and
it
is difficult that courts, police departments, mental health staff,
and
legislatures spend considerable time on the problem....that parents
can simply ignore...as they so often do with your encouragement by
distancing yourself from anything but "make up your own mind," and
the
posting of pro spanking and attacks on non-pain parenting.

So parents are so stupid that cannot be trusted to make up their own
mind???

Most people can make up their mind. That's not brain surgergy. The
problem we are addressing, though I'm feeling increasingly lonely, are
those people that can't be trusted to make them up correctly. That IS
something of a problem. But you are attempting to be inclusive again,
when it is some that are, not all.

LOL!

You are pretty desperate, obviously. Are you catching your breath for
another run at The Question, or are you going to stick it out with
"reasonable standards" though you've failed to defend that as a
measure?

I will stick it out until everyone see you what you are! ;-)

Or are you just shifting back and forth hoping for something else to
open up you can dive for and escape?

Thinking for yourself?

You could try hanging yourself. I'd probably give up on asking you The
Question. But as long as you are here and not babbling too much more,
I'll assume that you assume I'm not going to stop asking The Question.

And I will give you the same reasonable answer! ;-

Jails, and mental health facilities, and CPS archives, as well
as
DOJ
data makes it very clear. There are a massive number of failures
to
adequately judge that line of demarcation between abuse and
spanking.

Really? Show me the data! Is it 1% of the population? 10%? 20%?

I am not going to run up the abuse statistics on every state for
you
as you pose evasive questions instead of answering my question: The
Question.

I have already looked up the statistics, Kane.

That's nice. Then why did you ask me?

To prove what a liar you are! ;-)

You are refusing to show
me the data becaue that woudld prove that you are LYING!

No, I simply haven't looked them up. I used a very loose term,
"massive numbers."
In matters of injury and death to child I start at 1 and there is no
number along the way that changes my mind about the massive label. And
you?

Weasleingg again, Kane? ;-)

Besides, that argument would be about the reasonableness of The
Question. I think it reasonable to ask you in the light of your "let
them make up their own minds," don't you?

LOL!

And you STILL aren't answering The Question, just dancing and dodging,
twirling in a fuzzy blur of ever decreasing of weasel tail up your own
asshole.

Already answered!

If you do not believe me these are extremely easy to access.

I have. IT IS FAR LESS THAN 1%!!!

Okay, that's nice. It's about time you did your own research. Are you
going to make claims or are you going astound us with the tiny little
number that represents.

LOL!

Let me explain something about The Question, before you get carried
away.

Here comes the weasel! ;-)


I did not ask it for a policy matter. Programs are not going to be
based on it (at this time). I ask it for one parent, and one parent
only.

Pop goes the weasel! ;-)

That hypothetical parent that has come and has gone and will come
again to this ng and watch you and I. One of, if we are at all
responsible and reasonable people, or both, needs to come up with an
answer to that question they bring: "where, if I spank, should I stop
to keep from injuring my child?"

Where is this hypothetical parent?

Now I know they won't really use those words all, but it's heavily
implied in their arguments and questions, and you acknowledge that by
mentioned the large numbers of books on parenting that are available
to the smart ones.

LOL!

Your percentage of far less than one is very likely far short of
reality because it's going ot have legal limits on it and it's going
to miss a great many abuses that lead to injury and death. Have you
noticed how often bodies of long dead children are showing up these
days?

Really? How many - millions???? ;-)

I sometimes dread going for hikes in my mountains. It saddens me so to
know that they can be dumping grounds for the mistakes you may have a
moral involvement in with your dismissal of your responsibility but
your vigorous defense of CP...and don't try that **** with me or
anyone else that you don't defend it.

LOL! Really, Kane? Can we go looking for these dead bodies next time I
visit Colorado? ROTFLH! Did you get that one from the National Enquirer?

You've branded yourself over an over again a conscienceless liar on
that issue.

LOL! You are funny, Kane!

So, confine yourself to answering The Question, with the understanding
that I'll only go down your little byroads when it serves my purpose,
as it just did.

And I'll remember not to laugh so hard the next time! ;-)

So, hip boy, want to contribute the numbers to humanity, or just hold
them as a ploy for avoidance?

LOL!

Of course I cannot post the admissions that parents USE that excuse
after injuring their child, but I don't think anyone here would,
even
your sandbox butt buddy, would deny they do so.

Excuse are easy to make, Kane!

You teach me that every day I'm here.

You are being stupid again! ;-)

They've never been easy for me. I forget sometimes how easy they are
for others. Chalk it off to chronic naivete'.

LOL!

You are stupid to believe their veracity,
are you?

No, I'm not stupid. That should be obvious by my bringing them up as a
factor in The Question question. They are a factor in the need for a
standard so they have its vagueness as an excuse. Didn't you get that
from what I said?

LOL!

What excuse do they use to justify neglecting their children?

Each other. Poverty, though they seem to have enough for a quarter bag
a day. Domestic violence (one of the few I'll buy into...beaten
adults, like beaten children....tend to lose the power of self
determination..and it's very read...adults become childlike), Their
mother-in-law, their "SO"s mother, their "SO"s father - brother -
sister - Teddy bear. It can get pretty pathetic.

And I thought it was becasue of me! ;-)

Often the truth is pretty ordinary. Many hurt their children out of
shear inability to parent. Just don't have the will to do it. But hey
have to pretend because of societal pressure. Very sad indeed. For
all, and mostly for the children.

Me too!

Some are so sick they feed off their children emotionally and these
are the ones that scream their love the loudest when their children
are taken....denying they raped them, sold them for drugs, and made
this child's life hell with unpredictability.

And I thought it because they don't know the difference between a
spanking and beating! ;-)

Enjoying the byway? I know I am.

Every minute so far. ;-)

That is what make up most of the child-abuse cases, Kane!

Neglegence? Yes I know. It runs around half or a little under in most
states. The reason it appears to be more is that the abuse cases
almost always have a neglect element. It's the overlap that drives the
number on neglect up. So about oh say a half are both neglect and
abuse and about a third or so are abuse alone. Sometimes less in some
states.

I don't think I've seen national numbers in many months. It's not
something that holds my interest so I lose track.

Weasel!

Neglect, the last time I remember seems to have a higher incidence of
fatality. Seems logical. Is that what you found?

Diversion! ;-)

Do you always just spout a number and fail to put up the source?

Ha! Ha! Ha! That is funny! Try the National Clearing House of Child
abuse!

It not only IS a common defense, it fits with human mental
processing...to excuse bad behavior.
In other words, the spanked (90+%) of the population, has learned
to
lie very well to protect themselves from the consequences of their
actions.

The spanked LIE? ALL of THEM??? And the "never-spanked" like you
don't
lie, right? ;-)

I have a surprise for you. Everyone lies.

HA! HA! HA! And you accused me??? ;-)

Those that say they don't...wellllll, let's just let you out on that
one, okay. There's only one hair left showing now.

I didn't know you are bald! ;-)

You are a prime example.

LOL! Do you lie? ;-)

Yes. Absolutely. I did this evening. I told my wife that I really
liked to back off an give her daughers time with her on her birthday,
but the truth was I wanted to be with her more...lucky me, that live
in their own homes, and she and I in ours.

So you want me to believe you - a liar???? ;-)

I lied to my aging mother because she is becoming confused...at 90
that's not uncommon. She said she could leave and get an apartment of
her own and do just fine, and I said, "Of course you can mom." She
can't of course. But she lived so independently all her life I don't
want right now, remotely, to engage her in a discussion of plaining
for her best interests.

False analogy! ;-)

Shall I have her call you for a cheery "make up your own mind"?

If you want. Shall I make up her mind then? ;-)

Did yah tell the cop, when she stopped you, because you knew damn
well, "Yes, Officer, 88 mph..that's it, or maybe 89"?

Sure! I am not stupid! After all, I was spanked! What's your
excuse? ;-)

Sure you do Doan.

Here in this ng though Doan, you greatly surpass the social acceptable
norms of untruths for social grease. Here you expand the bounds of
veracity as few have attained before.

But you said we all LIE! That is normal according to you, a
"never-spanked" boy! ;-)

And what you claimed is true, how much reduction of the above do
you

see
in the countries that have banned spanking? Shall we look at
Sweden
before and after 1979?

If you wish to go down that road please do, but know at the end of
the
long evasive trail, I will be waiting here with The Question.

You can't handle the truth! :-)

Odd, it's not only right here I posted some URLs to it just a day ago.
Or maybe two...woudn't want to lie... R R R R

And one them disproved your claim. ;-)


It fails on the failure to define and apply spanking. It fails
on
the
incidence of abuse.

Really? How many child-abuse did Sweden prevented by banning
spanking?

I cannot say, and neither can you, but I can tell you that
immediately
there was huge increase in the reporting of child abuse....and
services rendered to child and family. The purpose was not to
reduce
the reporting of child abuse, but the incidence of it in the
future.

Show me the data!

I posted the arguments recently. The assumption that child abuse rates
when up has been meet by the truth that child abuse REPORTING rates
went up. Because child abuse in the form of beatings and "spankings"
was a norm...an extreme norm, beyond even our own, it wasn't reported
and didn't have to be under the law.

Nope! It didn't say that!

Now it does.

It doesn't!

It isn't rocket science, Doan, nor is it a bolt hole for you to avoid
The Question. Everyone knows you're dancing with these questions.

Assertion without proof again, Kane!

Enjoy. I am.

:-)

And what are we seeing?

Dr. Durant explains it well:
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm

Why don't you post the actual study instead of a "FILTERED" version
from a anti-spanking site, Kane? You do know how to think for
yourself,
don't you?

I don't have access to the study. If you do would you like to post it?

Someone already have. Look it up in google!

Is there something wrong with the statements of Dr. Durant you wish to
address?

Didn't you the one by Larzelere??? It's like a rebuttal to the claim
by Durrant!

How will they effect the topic, The Question?

Did I brought up Durrant????

You brought it up unbidden...or wish to use something I said to
quickly expand into a cloud of smoke for yourself. Do you think you
are clever? Are you aware that people reading, can think and see what
you are attempting?

And I thought they can't "make up their mind"? ;-)

If you are having trouble noticeing, I'll help. The see you haven't
answered The Question.

Reasonable standard! ;-)

"Reporting Rates vs. Rates of Actual Abuse
The claim that child abuse has increased in Sweden is primarily
based
on misinterpretation of assault report statistics. It is the case
that
reporting of child physical assault has increased in Sweden since
the
1970s - as it has in every nation that has raised awareness of the
issue of child abuse. Reporting rates are by no means equivalent to
rates of actual abuse. They are sharp reflections of/strongly tied
to
shifts in public awareness. "


Then for a lesson in "doublethink" about as good as I've run across
in
my lifetime, even better than your own, try reading this:

http://people.biola.edu/faculty/paulp/sweden2.html


Are you this devious? Where did it say that "reporting rates" is the
cause of the increase?

IT doesn't. That's why I labelled it doublethink. There is refusal,
not unlike your own, to connect to real world conditions. It's common
in the anti spank crowd. And they project it on everyone around them
much to our dismay. I see children with deep injuries, I hear the
excuses of of the parents who were "spanking," then I see you say,
"let them make up their own mind" and you appear out of touch with
reality.

Reality is 90%+ of people spanking; less than 1% abused their children;
and it has very little to do with spanking/non-spanking!

Yet the insane denial goes on, and you a big pusher of it.

AND YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR!

What would be devious about calling the citation source guilty of
doublethink?

If not devious then plain stupidity because the data contained within
burried your first source!

"Accordingly, the child abuse measure that included corporal
punishment
(hitting with an object) was significantly higher in the USA, whereas
the
child abuse measure that was identical except for excluding that item
showed a 4.1% rate in the USA and a 3.6% rate in Sweden. A later
(1985)
American survey that was more equivalent to the Swedish survey
concluded
that 1.9% of American parents were abusing their child according to
this
measure."

That fits in very nicely with the situation Dr. Durant claimed. We
have been reporting child abuse, for decaded longer than Sweden. When
they started up reporting it more...it follows the rate would
increase. That it surpasses ours goes to the very issue of them being,
before the law, extremely harsh with their children.

That of course isn't going to change overnight either.

But you said spanking is down! Using your logic, they must be lying
about spanking too -since it is now ILLEGAL!

The arguement is very strange indeed if it's meant to refute the
concept of non-spanking.

Exactly! You can't have it both way!

A complete denial of the fact that reporting something isn't the
doing
of that thing. And later, the passive voice reporting that death
rates
for children, always low in Sweden, have not changed..in other
words
the claim that not spanking was going to be bad for Sweden didn't
materialize.

Are you reading the same thing that I am reading?

Yes. The existing child abuse in Sweden was not being reported. Note,
death rates stayed the same. Why didn't they go up if the raising rate
of reported abuse went up? Because there was no increase in abuse,
just the reporting of it.

Because not all abuses causes death! That was the same argument you used
when you complained about violent juvenile and juvenile crime!

It's not rocket science, Doan.

Of course not!

"Considering a variety of factors, the fairest and most conservative
comparison was to compare the Swedish child abuse rate with the
average of
the two USA rates. By this method, the Swedish child abuse rate was
49%
higher in 1980 than the average of the 1975 and 1985 USA rates
(Larzelere,
1999). These findings were surprising to me, just as the original
findings
were to Gelles and Edfeldt. At first, I thought it might reflect a
temporary upsurge in child abuse as part of a systemic change in
Sweden to
disciplining children without the use of spanking."

I didn't see you response to this!

All they got was
more attention to the already severe problem with
UNREPORTED child abuse. Talk with older swedes about parenting
methods
of the past. They were an equal too if not the surpassers of the
Germans.

Speculation again, Kane!

They seem to agree with me in Europe. A couple of spanking defenders
don't. I don't let their extreme thinking errors remove the realworld
considerations.

So you went to Europe and askes a representative sample too, Kane?


If I'm counting pebbles in the stream in a perfunctory manner, with a
very weak mandate to count because the pebbles have always been there,
the number per foot count is going to be very low....if I suddenly get
orders to count ever people per running foot there is going to be a
whole lot higher rate of pebbles per foot in my tally.

So outlawing pebbles will reduce it? Logic and the anti-spanking
zealotS... ;-)

Real world, Doan, not the world you fabricate as an excuse for your
diminished conscience.

You meant the "dream" land on a Malaysian mountain! ;-)

How many parents who become clients of CPS for reasons of
alleged
abuse, say "Yes, I sat her on the stove to burn her butt to the
bone,
and didn't take her to the hospital until she was dying."

You tell me! Could it be LESS THAN ONE PERCENT???

That was MY point, Doan. Regressive fallacy number 4.032. Don't you
ever improve your ploy repertoire. You are so easy to spot.

My point was that parents lie about their "spanking" and call it
that
when it is in fact abusive and damaging to the child. Do you think
that at any point in time from the birth of their child to the
moment
they were nailed by CPS they told anyone the truth about their
"spanking" practices?

And they will tell you the truth if you banned spanking?

No. Why would they. The point of banning spanking isn't to get more
confessions, is it?
But those who are spanking, and or abusing are going to come under
scrutiny much more if after the law passes there is a requirement to
improve the counting methods..precisely what happened in Sweden.

But that's 1979! This is 2003! A whole generation has been brought
up under the spanking ban; high taxes and a whole social support
structure to make it work. Why no reduction in child abuse rate???

You don't study these things objectively, Doan. It's pretty obvious
you for them trying to find things that will support your theory,
backwards science as it were, that makes you cherry pick, just like in
bad science. Be objective, read everything, hold it up against what
goes on in the real world.

I didn't fudge the data, Durrant did! Are you accusing her of not
being objective????

Pre law, poor collecting of abuse data. Post law, big time pressure
and a good response, to more diligent counting.

Where is the proof?

Low number before, high numbers after. ...honest, not rocket science.

And that is a reduction??? Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS.... ;-)

How about
the "he fell" excuse? Have you heard that?

My info is all second hand. I have heard the same for many years
though. I read court transcripts, second hand in my mind. I read
studies, third hand or more hand. It adds up.

LOL! And I thought you have first hand knowledge!

And you think you
can stop that kind of abuse by just banning spanking?

I don't recall saying that, but I suspect the incidence of child
abuse, were the use of CP outlawed, would result over time as
people
learned other methods of parenting....OR LOST THEIR children to
those
that do use non pain parenting, YES, the that kind of abuse would
reduce.

Any evidence of that in, not just Sweden, but any of the other
countries
that banned spanking??? Come on, Kane. Here is your chance to prove
your assertion. Here is your chance to convince me and others!
DON'T
BLOW IT!

Why do you dance and shout and everything have to be a school boy dare
with you Doan. Are you that frightened?

Just having fun! ;-)

I haven't made a claim that anti spanking laws made abuse rates go
down. I said I suspect. I'm realistic. I know, right up close from
treating spanking victims, now insidious and life long such
experiences can be. Those boys I worked with will always be high risk
for abusing their own children. We gave them every tool for self
control and an appreciation for themselves we could, and we worked
diligently on empathy building for them, but they were spanked. That
doesn't just go away.

Not sure of yourself now, Kane? ;;-)

It could be a generation or two to see the significant changes in
populations that outlaw spanking. Abuse is intergenerational even if
one can stop it entirely. It's like substance abuse. A family can be
clean for generations, but the family interactions can still be based
on those learned generations ago to support the boozer or druggie and
THOSE will make the family look like it has abuse dynamics...and of
course, the risk is high they will, or they will substitute other
unpleasant counterproductive behaviors ...manipulative, low trust for
each other, scapegoating...you know the kinds of things you do. so
much here.

So we will have to wait a few more generations to see its effects???

Same with spanking. Or abuse or neglect.

Sound like weasels!

Using the absolute, "stop" of course, is your silly attempt to one
action fiddle the language.

I din't say it in the absolute!

You didn't "mean" it in the absolute? Okay.

However I notice that that is entirely unconnected to our thread of
debate, the subject is not in it.

Then why did you brought it up????

I don't think you can support your implication that I WANT to ban
spanking. I consider it a second best solution to the voluntary
reduction by parents who will stop listening to their fear filled
childhood denial, and to you and your encouragement to spank.

The best way is to prove to them that the non-cp alternatives are
effective and better.

No, actually it isn't. One cannot convince a spanker or those from a
spanking background using "facts." The don't respond to "facts," and
will squirm in great spasm of panic to avoid facts.

LOL! So you will force them????

What might give them a chance to make a more balanced decision is to
admit that non-spanking begins with the premise, and it's not
refutable...there is not risk of injury or death to the child by not
hitting them.

How?

From there one goes to what works better. They aren't going to just
try it. That went by the wayside long ago, as a possibility.
How?

90% of the people have been spanked. They have defenses in place to
keep it. Long convulted arguments such as you indulge in are dead on
to keep them spanking or convince them to start. YOU aren't neurtral
and I'm not lying.

LOL!

I encourage parents to make up their own
mind.

YOU say it. You do not encourage it or you would work to maintain a
neutral objective assessment of both sides. You WORK at it. You don't
even consider the other side. You never attack the premises of the
spanking advocates, or question their arguments. They have NO evidence
that long term use of CP is harmless...and you won't admit it.

It's so obvious that it makes you, and those like you an instant fool
to anyone that doesn't immediately take shelter for their childish
fear of loss of control and power in relationship (a gift from
childhood) and your endless babble convinces them long before you say,
"make up your own minds."

LOL!

You are lying when you said I encourage parents to spank!

Do you deny that you fail to attack prospank arguments with the vigor
you attack anti spank arguments? Do you deny that you fail to
recognise that spanking has risks outside most parents capacity to
gauge in all instances with all children?

You have no proof! You can't convince people if you don't have proof!

Do you deny that you run when confronted with anecdotal evidence but
will present it yourself in defense of spanking as a choice?

LOL!

Do you deny that you have claimed that using non cp has risks, as you
claim shows in studies, but fail to do the same for using CP?

LOL! Have you stopped beating you wife yet? ;-)

STOP LYING!

You should.

But you shouldn't? ;-)

I point to the reasons. I don't just declare.

You point to what reasons? Reasons to make up their own mind without
adequate knowledge of the injury issues in CP?

They have every reason to make up their own mind! You have the burden
to prove to them your claim!

Have YOU ever cited anyone to Riak's page? You have cited people to
pro spank pages.

Why should I? I don't believe in them!

When I say you are a liar, I am not saying you don't say what you
say...you do say "let them make up their own minds." But, you are a
liar when you claim that you give them the equal amount of information
from both side so the issue.

LOL! They don't see both sides on this newsgroup? Logic, Kane! ;-)

Even they know you aren't neutral.

And you are???

On the other hand I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong, and
the
fastest progress, just as we saw with women's suffrage and the
civil
right movement, may well lie with a change in the law. It seems to
be
the case in the countries that have outlawed CP.

I am saddened, but not ashamed that I could be wrong. I wish it
were
otherwise, and loving parents didn't themselves have to be
threatened
to awareness...but if that's what it takes I'll be able to take a
break and end my reasoned appeals to conscience.

Conscience, and its development, often being the first casualty of
pain parenting.

This is one of the self admitted "stupid" things I do. I trust
parents
to a far greater degree than they warrant by the evidence of their
behavior.

SO YOU DON'T TRUST PARENTS???

What a silly ass thing to say. And a school boy yell too.

You are lying when you ask such obviously accusatory rhetorical
questions. Your loss of your self in this is exposure of yourself.

LOL!

Are their parents that injure and kill their children with
"discipline?"
I trust parents to be fallible humans and have never said otherwise.
Some will err. In an effort to offer them a chance to look at another
way with far less risk...near zero....and replace it with not just the
ceasing of hitting, but with the chance to learn more effective
ways...I trust them to do well when they try it.

And you will make up their mind for them???

Nearly all do, except those who stay locked into their pain and
control punishment model thinking and try to apply non-punitive
methods.

Ah! The enlightenned ones! ;-)

What they do say, after they have run the gamut of, "she climbed
up
and fell on the burner," "A masked intruder, black of course (or
the
minority race of your choice), crept in the window and put her
on
the
burner," " My boyfriend did it" is this: "She wouldn't stop
crying
so
I thought I could discipline her." THAT IS what they say. I've
heard
it in court, and I've seen it in transcripts of confessions.

And this would not happenned if we just banned spanking??? Sorry,
I
don't
see the logic, Kane.

No, I was not discussing that. Are you using regression or
aggression
logical fallacies today? I am explaining why I know that parents,
in
answer to YOUR diverting question, do NOT know how to limit
themselves
in many instances.

You are using a small number of parents who abused their kids and
generalize that to the population at large. That is a fallacy!

For what? The Question? No, in fact I've carefully confined The
Question to what one parent wants to know. You are again, just as I
accuse you of above, trying to expand the arguement to beyond where I
made it.

I only response to what you brought up!

Where did I say The Question had to address gross demographic
concerns. It might do that, but at this time I don't care. I am one
theoretical parent waiting for this babbling wandering idiot to get
over thousands of lines of diversion and answer The Question as it was
asked, or get off the pot and admit he cannot.

And the answer have been given!

Does it ever occur to you their may be another answer this problem of
risk...that we simply show the one who is here to ask ALL the
altrnatives in a simple fashion with out all these diversions you
trough in the instant the question is asked by them announcing their
presence?

And I have asked you to prove that your "alternatives" are better.
Can you prove it?

You may be too short, in morals, metaphorically speaking, to see
over
the thickets along your diverted argument, but I am not. We are
still
talking about The Question.

Oops! Resorting to ad-hom again.

Ooops! Using it to avoid The Question.

The question has been answered!

Do you look at yourself in the mirror
yet? ;-)

Do you really think my use of an ad hom is sufficient excuse,
ethically, to NOT continue to address the question?

No! Your ad-hom just shows your true character!

Would you answer it if I asked without ad hom?

I already have - EVEN WITH THE AD HOM! See how nice I am to you? ;-)

No, it's obvious by now you wouldn't because I have, repeatedly and
you still dance.

Nope! You just can't handle the truth! ;-)

This in the face of and despite the fact that a million
reports
of
child abuse are made in every year in the US and approximate
half
are
for "spankings" that in fact have done injury to a child
physically
and I presume mentally.

Cite your source, Kane.

Why would you make such a demand?

Because, as usual, you have nothing to support your claims!

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number...so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush
along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about
The
Question.

What number have you provided to prove your claim that crime is down
because we are spanking less???

Your declaration makes it so? I don't see you bothering to post
anything that would refute my number..

I have - the FBI data. Your defense of your lie is another lie - it's
the computer! :-)

.so I have to assume you are
wishing badly that I become entangled in your thickets of brush along
the your side-road and I and the reader will forget this is about The
Question.

Answered!

I was not discussing numbers. YOU were. I enaged in it with you. I no
longer wish to. I am not in the business of defending my numbers. Some
other time perhaps and you may naw race about and claim I ran from
debate...but remember, google is watching and I'm quite comfortable
with quoting the archives when some pennyante little coward starts
lying.

You want to run from the numbers you claimed now?

YOU have been running from ME and that question was simply one in a
long line of attempts to avoid The Question.

Answered!

This document is now only one quarter of its orginal length, even with
our current posting. I am taking out the rest on the grounds you have
answered the question here or in the rest of the document.

You have dodged, weaved, changed the subject, and all to avoid the
truth:

You lie directly. You lie by omission. You lie by artifice.

You lie.

And you admitted to lying! ;-)

Answer the question as asked. All other questions you have brought up
I will consider at another time and place at my pleasure.

Run, Kane8! Run! ;-)

You are of of course free to do the same, even with this, The
Question.

Answered!

But if you leave, you leave the field before you've done with The
Question.

Answered

I declare I have run, for now,

Coward!

from debating all the misleading,
dodging, bull**** you have heaved up (much of which has been debated
before with you to no end by me and others). Now show your mettle.
Answer The Question.

Answered!

Best wishes

Kane

The dog ran with tails between his legs! ;-)

Doan