Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / December 2004

On 12 Nov 2004 08:22:34 -0800, cdc0038@acs.tamu.edu (Chris C.) wrote:

..........and posted, obviously trolling for support, to
alt.christian.religion...

You'll find, Chris C., that not all Christians agree with assaulting
children and calling it "love."

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/
http://stoptherod.net/

There is no such thing as "reasonable force statutes" regarding
corporal punishment of children. "reasonable force" is a statutory
concept relating to criminal law regarding the use of force in
situations where one is protecting self or others. It is used to judge
the use of force by police...who, by the way,  are only allowed to use
force in three ways; to arrest someone's progress who resists, to
protect the officer, and to protect the suspect or others.

Police are not allowed by law to use force to "punish" as in "corporal
punishment." Any such attempt is prosecutable as "assault"
except.....in the instance of a parent assaulting a child physically.

Morally this is recognized in many nations as assault and a crime.
While I do not, at this time, presuming my neighbors and fellow
citizens to be morally progressive and cabable of responding to ethics
and logic in argument, support the use of statute to correct this very
sick practice of spanking.

How does spanking "physically restrain"[t] a child? That is,
ostensibly, not it's purpose. Or it wouldn't be labeled as corporal
"punishment."

You are confusing one with the other to obscure the issue of spanking
being the moral equivalent of assault.

Your logic is badly flawed and you have not progressed, personally,
for as long as I've seen you post here. You fail to defend your
so-called
"choice" and you have failed logically repeatedly to defend spanking
as not being assaultive.

nue

Interestingly I find that you and your cronies are most often the
perpetrators of such abuse.

Upon my first visit to the ng a couple of years back I was stunned to
see Chris Dugan, who I could find NO posts written by the used ad hom
in any of his arguments, being repeatedly and viciously attacked by a
whole slew of low-lifes such as you  (I'm not as polite as Chris D.)
From "LaChrissy" to YOU, to Fern, to Observer, to Doan and the
occasional a.shole troll.

You, Chris C., are a phony. And any google of your posting history
here makes it plain you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You
pretend to an ethic you do not practice, and try to project your own
sick attacks as being done TO you rather than BY you.

R R R ... in it's original, it is "Positive Discipline:  50 Principles
& Alternatives to Punishment"

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

others

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

to

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And what the hell is a "non-punitive consequence?" A hug? I doubt you
a.sholes that obvious hate, distrust, and are frightened by little
children have it in you to respond to unwanted behavior with positive
consequences...though I've proven again and again, and taught others
how to do it, even with children that were so far gone that they were
diagnosed as mentally ill.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

consistent

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

and

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

week

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

give

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

exciting,

needs

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

Then I can't have sex with consenting adults, smoke, drink alcohol,
cross the street by myself, or stay out after curfew. Get real you
simp.

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

up

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

a

sexist

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

children

And pick spanking as a reasonable response if you fail or fail to
respond effectively without force?

There are not "reasonable force" statutes regarding parent child
discipline. CP is CP.

<>Here in TX we are keeping an

of

What is a 'cohort'?"

You are a reasonable then in your "debate" of the subject as all the
other little dim twits that show up here and move on because they fail
to put forward logic and ethical argument. In other words they fail to
defend the practice of spanking as a reasonable means of treating
children.

The making of peaceful families that do not use pain and humiliation
is not a harmful agenda.

Your definition does not apply to everyone in this ng that disagrees
with you, Chris. That is only one point some of us make. We have other
points we make as well. And punishment is not universally agreed upon
by us.

Notice how often one of us mentions the Swedish model...their law
against child abuse. Then recall what the "punishment" is for breaking
the law in Sweden.

No we don't. Not a single person here that is against the practice of
assaulting children and calling it CP, or "spanking," has ever
minimized or otherwise denied the difference.

WE have not attempted to "fuzz the lines" the least bit. In fact I've
requested repeatedly that YOU folks clarify the line...which by it's
nature and reality IS FUZZY. Even the law cannot and has not clarified
the line between child abuse and acceptable corporal punishment.

In time, as law makers in other countries have done, if YOU and YOUR
cohorts do not stop defending child assault and make a  moral choice
to end it, law makers here will come to see that there IS NO
LINE...that the use of pain and humiliation for parenting IS
assaultive..and the reason we have laws to protect adults from assault
are exactly the same reason we should not assault children.

Because it is immoral, and it proven to not work.

We have stood up to the bullying tactics of you and your cohort.
Fighting back is not bullying. You are, by your willingness to allow
and support parental choice to assault their children, a complicite
bully.

How can you be sure, other than to make a veiled by obvious personal
attack on them by that statement and claim? The behavior of a bully.

I learned as a child there is only one cure for a bully who will not
listen to reason, logic, and exhortation to stop.....kick their butt
thoroughly. Then switch to the more civilized offerings to discuss the
issue.

Then why did you just do it, and why do those in your camp use ad hom
and lies?

Fern is the most blatant example of a liar, Doan of an ad hom name
caller.

And you, of a slimy word twister that pretends to saintliness while
using ad hom yourself, as you are doing in this post.

A few of your cohort's various attacks, lies, and immoral rants:

Doan:
"I have already proved that you were on the punishment component in
the Embry study.  You are either stupid or a very bad liar. Which
is it? :-)"

In another, I accused him of dodging a question...by a device you are
using now....I said "Dodger." He replied with:

"Stupid dog! :-)"

I then said he was behaving like a child, calling him "little boy."

He replied with:

"You don't see them hurling obscenities, do you stupid dog? :-0"

See the lies and escalation of ad hom?  He's an obvious bully.

I stated:

He replied:
"I used your logic against you, stupid dog! ;-)"

This is a tiny sample, by the way, the last three entries from just
ONE post, of hundreds and hundreds of posts by Doan that shows who is
and isn't the bully in these exchanges.

Fern has posted 295 posts with LaVonne as the subject...and I found
none that were not derisive, and few that did not contain lies
concerning LaVonne.

Then there was this silly twit:
"
From: LaChrissie@webtv.net (LaChrissie@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Reply to Chris C

View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 2001-11-19 10:15:43 PST

Little osama dugan is crabwalking about as fast as his
namesake.....The
little weasel is clearly on the run and here's a classic portrait him
"
LaChrissie went on for hundreds of such posts, obviously obsessed with
Chris D. and your cohort's inability to defeat his logic and facts.

Observer, "LaChrissie," and other abusive twits long gone from here
have similar posting histories.

YOU Chris C, have posted the following comments:

From your most recent putting words in LaVonne's mouth, "'Everybody
Look at Me'"

To;

"The clique displays obsessive tendencies"
"waiving her somewhat tattered diploma"

To making unproven, bogus claims about me and my posting:
"
-Mind reading

-Making up histories of posters and backgrounds

-Placing his words and actions on others

-Misrepresenting the data

-Misrepresenting other posters
"

None of which I do, and exactly what YOU do.

To this lie (Gowtch) and ad hom (Chris Dugan) combined:

"
It's nice to see the only "ex-cohort" (thrown out for his usual
behavior) member back spewing forth his rantings for which he knows
nothing! I hope he follows up with some choice phrases as usual (I
still think he's Chris Duggie in hiding).
"

and;

"
Fern--This is the classic moron Kane talking his typical tripe below.
No response is even needed. He doesn't warrant one. He reminds me of
Ivan (maybe it is). This needs to be crossposted just so others
(cohort included---because they wouldn't even have him) won't waist
[sic] their time or energy on him. He doesn't even matter in the
equation (I believe they call that "less than zero").
"

And Chris C., these all came from just the sequential first 7 or 8 of
the hits in google when I clicked on your addy. You post like this
constantly. You cannot post without ad hom and lies, apparently. And
hom and facts would be interesting and colorful. But lies? Tsk.

Nonsense. A simple lie. No such advocacy has happened. What has
happened is that the "cohort" individuals have each expressed their
own views. For instance some are for laws against spanking. I,
personally am not, and stated so, and given the reasons why not many
times.

Some are for some punitive child teaching, I happen to not be. Some
are to a degree and others less.

You are clearly a bigot..by the use of classifying us into a group so
you can belittle and insinuate as less grand than you. Trying to make
a connection to our claims, statements, arguments, debate, that is not
up to your lofty ideals of reasoned discussion of this issue.

As I said you are a phony. Here's some more for folks to see what you
are really up to, and your lack of ethics:

Taking my statement out of context, by unethical snipping, you
commented:
"
His intellect is obviously limited so
he feels the need to add such verbiage to legitimize his lack of
scholarship. -Keep posting.-Chris
"
"As you have already figured out by now that Kane is a member of the
notorious "think-a-likes" that camp out here in this ng. Many of us
refer to them as the"cohort" because of their love of the fight. They
can't see that the narrow focus of their agenda will actually harm
parents and families in the long-term. Keep giving them hell (they
deserve it for the neophyte propaganda they push).-Chris
"
"
Fern--it's sad to say that these cases are all to often allowed to
occur. Of course the rights of any individual, according to the
"cohort', doesn't compare to even 1 child receiving a single swat (I
remember reading a post like this from several members of that liberal
elitist group).
"

Rather than go on with this sad litany of your phoniness let's take a
closer look at your more recent attempt to "take the high ground" from
those you call, "the cohort."

You, who claim to be a researcher and degreed scholar......posted the
work of another without citation and credit, so it might appear to the
reader as your own work..did you not?

All you did was leave off the last two suggestions. Was that supposed
to allow you to take others intellectual property? Not without a
citation it's not.

YOU, allowed to read other's work for scholarly content? R R R R R R

Now go and apologize to Ms. Couture:

Positive Discipline:  50 Principles & Alternatives to Punishment
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm

That's our name calling twit, Chris C. A LAZY TAKER OF OTHER'S WORK.

Do you bring this same ethical standing to your arguments with those
you disagree with here?

Who among us have you ever seen steal another's work deliberately and
post it unattributed, with the assumption or implication very possibly
made by the reader, that it was our own work? Who needs watching?

I'm stunned by your fair mindedness, and your lack of name calling and
blaming.

I've never seen a single poster here, as you insinuate above, that you
refer to as "the cohort" and "they," claim that parents aren't the
best advocate for their children.

Their argument, that you attempt to change by putting words and
political motivations on them they have not said or is exhibited by
any of us.

"The cohort," and "they," have argued that some parents are not good
advocates for their children. And some are not, obviously, as some
have abused, neglected, and killed their own children.

Usually we referred to abusive parents, and of course, to parents that
are not logically clear about the connection between hitting and
spanking and assault.

That is the central argument here, and you attempt to reframe it into
a bogus argument. Who needs watching here?

I DO consider them, and you, as poor advocates for children.

By the way, what is it in the belief of ending assault of children
extrapolates to the larger question of social reform?

Does this mean you are against social reform? That IS, as far as I can
tell, all that "neo-" as in "new," "social" as in "society," and
"constructionist," as in "builder," could mean, unless of course you
were name calling...a practice you claim is the exclusive game of "the
cohort."

By the way, the website you "borrowed" the list of parenting
disciplines from:

http://www.childadvocate.org/2e.htm ,

Bills itself as "The Web Site that Brings Attention to the Human
Rights of Young People," A quick read of the site shows it to be
exactly what you attempt to use as a derisive attack on "the cohort."

And among the comments on the use of punishment is this short sentence
of description: "Physically and verbally violent and aggressive."

You should read Ms Coutre's personal info page at:

http://www.childadvocate.org/6a.htm

And her position on CP:

At http://www.childadvocate.org/1a.htm

"
Definitions
© 2000-2003 by Laurie A. Couture, M.Ed, LMHC

Corporal Punishment is any action on the part of an adult or caretaker
that intentionally inflicts, or causes to result, pain or
physiological discomfort in a person under the age of 18 for the
purposes of punishment or containment. Corporal punishment is
generally referred to as spanking, slapping, smacking, hitting or
paddling a child in a way that does not meet the legal requirements
for a definition of child abuse. However, corporal punishment also
includes: Biting, shaking, shoving or pulling a child; denying,
restricting or rationing a child's use of the toilet; denying any
other physiological need or forcing physical exertion and fixed
positions as a means of punishment or containment.
"

By the way, your combining of the last three "principles" into a
single one, does not constitute a defensible taking of others work and
not citing them with credit...as in:

"
Principle #49: Honor a child's need for autonomy and power over some
aspects of his/her decisions- let them make decisions where
appropriate

Principle #50: Above all, treat all children with dignity and respect
by refraining from using negative, punitive and violent methods of
control- Use positive methods that promote critical thinking and show
love, caring, empathy, understanding and patience towards all children
"

I suspect you jambed the together to confuse the readers perception of
what they really say....for they clearly say, "don't spank."

When you a looking for parenting principles to list to attempt to take
the moral highground in this debate, Chris C., you might want to avoid
someone that has the strong opinions of "the cohort" you attempt to
ridicule and bully by these tactics of yours.

You are really funny, Chris C. and of course a three dollar bill.

This post is just one in a series of attempts from time to time from
you to try and legitimize you and your little "cohort." Sorry. No
cigar. Anyone that can read can figure you out in a moment, unless
they to suffer from the compulsion to assault children, or defend
others doing so.

How many children have you raised, or are you raising, in your home?

I have a choice not to eat icecream too. I am a non-icecream eater by
choice.

I don't keep any in my home so of what importance is my "choice?"

...the phony. You aren't one of those texans given to exaggeration,
are yah,
Chris C.?

Kane