 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / September 2005Baumrind bogus....as Larzelere
Murray Straus' comments on Baumrind's data August 27, 2001 I heard Diana Baumrind's paper and responded to it to several reporters after. See the Saturday NY Times for Saturday 25 August. I said that her study is excellent, but despite that there are clear reasons for not accepting her conclusions: 1. The most crucial data (the longitudinal part) is based on only 79 cases. This would be enough for many purposes. But in this case, she has split those cases into many small cells, some with as few as 6, 7, and 8 cases. With n's that small, it takes a huge differences in a dependent variable (such as internalizing or externalizing behavior problems) to be statistically dependable ("significant"). That plays into her hand because she wants to show that spanked children are not worse off. Her handout table also fails to show the mean scores after adjustment for the controls. It is quite possible that if the means were given, they would they show that, although the differences are not significant because of the small n's, they are there, i.e. that the more spanking, the worse the outcome for the child. The most extreme example of the small number of cases problem is the children whose parents did not spank at all. Diana used this group to counter my claim (based on many studies by me and others) that unspanked children are, on average, the best behaved and the least hassle for parents. She said that her study refutes this because the unspanked children in here study did not have fewer behavior problems, higher IQ, etc. than the spanked kids. But it turns out that there are only 3 such children in her study, so naturally there is no "significant" difference between the unspanked and the spanked children. 2. Baumrind's study is the seventh longitudinal study to appear since the first one in 1997. Although none of the previous studies controls as much as Baumrind's, all controlled for the most crucial sources of error, and together (even though not in any one study), they controlled for all of them. All of the previous six studies found harmful effects for CP. That is an almost unprecedented degree of consensus in research, and especially research on the effects of parenting practices. When 6 out of 7 of the best studies get parallel results, one should not rush to judging that the six are wrong because the 7th gets different results. 3. Finally, for the sake of this discussion, let us assume that her seventh study does call into question the previous results, making them less conclusive. Is it then improper for professionals to advise parents not to spank, as Baumrind argues? On the contrary, the professional OBLIGATION to advise no spanking remains. This is because there is such clear evidence that other methods of teaching and correcting children work at least as well, even in the short run. The situation is analogous to the FDA advising (about 2 weeks ago) against the use of a certain anti-cholesterol medication because of strong but not conclusive evidence of harmful side effects. They withdrew the drug, even though the evidence of harmful side effects was NOT conclusive, because there are two or three other drugs which are just as effective, but do not have a risk of those side effects. In short, there are alternative medicines for misbehavior that are at least as effective, so parents should avoid a medicine for which there is strong, even though not conclusive, evidence of harmful side effects. (See below for some of the evidence on the equal effectiveness of other medicines for misbehavior.) 4. For those of you who read the NY Times article, I want to point out that the review of previous research by Larzeler is highly misleading. (If you want to read the review, it is in Pediatrics for 1996, not in a 1999 journal). First, Larzelere's review does not include any of the longitudinal studies because they did not start appearing until 1997. More important, it presents those studies in misleading ways. Larzelere concluded that the "eight strongest studies" all show "beneficial effects." However, when one reads the actual studies, what they show is that, without exception, non-corporal methods were equally effective (see section A3 of this chapter). Seven of the "the eight strongest studies" refer to short-term compliance with a parental request. Of these seven, five compared CP with alternatives. All five found the alternatives to be just as "beneficial" as CP in obtaining compliance by the child. For example, Day & Roberts (1983) compared spanking as a back-up for leaving a time-out chair with placing the child in a room with a waist-high barrier held across the door for ONE minute. They found that "both spank and barrier procedures were equally effective at increasing compliance" (p. 141), and that "There was no support for the necessity of the physical punishment...." (p. 150). A replication (Roberts and Powers 1990) obtained the same results. Of course, taken literally, Larzelere is correct in saying that these studies found "beneficial outcomes" in the sense of the spanked children complied with the parental requests. But I think it is misleading to not have more clearly stated that non-corporal discipline worked just as well. Only one of the eight "strongest" studies was about long-term effects (Bernal, Duryee, Pruett, and Burns 1968). It does show a beneficial effect of spanking. However, it takes a leap of faith in CP to regard it as a "strong" study. It is about a single case. Moreover, that case was a child with severe conduct disorder, and possibly schizophrenia. So even that one case does not provide information that applies to children in general. Most important of all, only a minor part of the intervention was the use of CP. The major part was training the mother in how to respond appropriately, such as when to not take the bait provided by this child's misbehaviour. The mother was also trained to reinforce positive behaviour and to issue commands confidently and consistently. Thus spanking was confounded with other interventions and the study provides no evidence that the spanking part of the intervention was what improved the child's behaviour. In fact, the intervention might have been even more effective if the spanking part of the intervention had been omitted. Larzelere also reviewed ten prospective studies and 17 retrospective studies. He summarizes the prospective studies as follows: "Three (30%) found predominantly detrimental effects, whereas the other seven (70%) found predominantly neutral outcomes. In short, the results were either no benefit for spanking or determent. Of the retrospective studies, nine (53% of the 17) found predominantly detrimental outcomes, 7 (41%) found predominantly neutral outcomes, and 1 (6%) found predominantly beneficial outcomes." So, contrary to Larzeler's implication of beneficial effects, examination of the actual studies, reveals that none of the 10 prospective studies and only one of the 17 retrospective studies found a beneficial outcome. Moreover, there were substantial percentages (30% and 53% with detrimental outcomes). Since the publication of Larzelere's review, almost a revolution has occurred in research on the effects of CP. There are now six prospective studies. All show that the long-term effect of CP is counterproductive in the sense of higher rates of misbehavior two and 4 years later for children who were spanked versus lower rates for children whose parents avoided CP (Gunnoe and Mariner 1997; Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims 1997), or that CP had harmful side effects, including slowing the rate of children's cognitive development (Straus and Paschall 1999) and violence by adolescent boys towards their parents (Brezina 1999) or towards a dating partner (Simons, Lin and Gordon 1998). Five of these studies are summarized in the concluding chapter to the 2nd edition of Beating The Devil Out Of Them (Straus 2001b). http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm Ha! Ha! What's the sample size of the Embry study? ;-) And more importantly, what are the results of the non-spanking alternatives as compare to spanking? In Straus & Mouradian (1998), Straus found that the more non-cp discipline the higher the ASB. Reference: Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 16: 353-374. Doan > Murray Straus' comments on Baumrind's data > August 27, 2001 [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > > http://www.nospank.net/straus10.htm While it won't interest those who require scholarly and scientific evidence, I have found a website on a bit lower common denominator on the web which offers personal narrative and experince, and anecdotal recountings of benefits (pro and con) pulled from subjective memory, childhood experience, trauma, and the (much later) verdict of those who underwent childhood corporal punishment. Some will find these web sites interesting, intriguing, and young parents may find some of the commentary and interpretation to be of some help. A cautionary note is in order, even Dr. Dobson, a prominent socalled "advocate" of spanking, has urged parents to beware of harshness and abusiveness in disciplining children, and I suspect he would be wary of endorsing (associating his name in any official way) with some of these web-sites. One of these sites is titled Spank With Love. I do not wish to be drawn into a bitter feud (pro and con battle), since, like many things, there could be sincerely held views on a variety of "sides." Often, our motives may be more or less on track, even if we can't fully figure out where the "opposite side" is coming from. > While it won't interest those who require scholarly and scientific > evidence, I have found a website on a bit lower common denominator on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (associating his name in any official way) with some of these > web-sites. Actually, Robin, that is pap from Dr. Dobson. It's the coverup of his true intention to in fact be extremly harsh in disciplining children. All one needs to do is read his books....he most explicitly incites others to use extreme pain to control children in the "battle" as he discribes it between parent and child. He's two faced as they come. > One of these sites is titled Spank With Love. Is that The Perls site? It's rather fitting that there are references to porn sites that use that phrase..."Spank with Love." > I do not wish to be drawn into a bitter feud (pro and con battle), > since, like many things, there could be sincerely held views on a > variety of "sides." Often, our motives may be more or less on track, > even if we can't fully figure out where the "opposite side" is coming > from. I don't have the least trouble knowning where I'm coming from and surely not from the other side. They make it very plain they wish to be free to ass-sault their children and rename it into the innocuous sounding "discipline." They ignore reality, and claim the impossible. They have to to cover up and hide from what happend to them as children ass-saulted by their parents. It is a well known and thoroughly studied phenomena that humans can and do often identify with their torturers and become devoted to them in a kind of sick involved attachment process. The Stockholm Syndrom, and Patty Hearst's experience are excellent examples. And certainly not the only ones. Patty was one of those, just like many spanked children, that after the events and when one is safe, they get it what was done to them. Unfortunatly there millions upon millions more that do not get it, and live buried in their self imposed suppression of the reality. Hitting a child is ass-sault. And it will always be, just as hitting an adult is. In addition it's cowardly because the child has no immediate way of fighting back or even protecting themselves. And in states that have banned paddling? Look at their grades and level of violencd compared to states that allow it, and actively engage in it. What's to debate? That was over long ago here. Nothing left but dancing monkeys now gibbering the same nonsense long ago thoroughly rebutted and that should have, with civilized, logical, honest, healthy people, been laid to rest forever. 0:-> I strongly agree that the Stockholm Syndrome is highly relevant to the discussion on this topic, and even germane to the narratives from webistes like Spank With Love. I believe it is a geocities hosted site. I even agree with the Patty Hearst lawyers, what a brilliant ploy it was to play on the jury's emotions with their sentimental portrait of a poor little rich girl, "brainwashed" by crafty terrorists into believing what she didn't believe, doing what she didn't want to do, participating in bank heists, toting her (was it submachine gun?) all the while not really meaning to, not really believing in it. Maybe it was the Hearst family's lawyers who were really crafty .... and Patty herself. Not that I disagree with the lenience. Our society is far too harsh as it is, far too punitive-spirited, far too argumentative and hateful and negative. Where I mostly disagree with you is your equation of Discipline with Spanking. I feel very strongly that discipline must, in the end, mean teaching. Etymologically, the Latin word from which we get our word Discipline includes this meaning (of teaching) at its root. Thus, the aim and goal of all "discipline" is not to smite helpless victims (obviously it occasionally seems like it, I know whereof I speak), but to socialize the learner. The goal of all "discipline" is ultimately self-discipline. Nietzsche grumbled (eloquently) about how the Christian priests and missionaries crammed their "morality" of weakness down the throats of the noble, manly, strength-honoring tribesmen ... and wound up turning them into slaves and serfs, tillers of the soil. Nietsche despised the weakness and effeminacy which the Christianized Roman missionaries (with Armies to back them up) forced upon the free, and masculine tribesmen. I think that the Roman "civilizers" (And I admit their brutality, their cruelty) had the view that these tribesmen, huntsmen, were little better than children. They subjugated them in order to lift them (in the view of the "missionaries"). Far from the idyllic condition that Nietzsche and Rousseau and the Romantics pictured, the tribesmen were little better than hunter-gatherrers, hovering on the brink of starvation. More important, perhaps, than religion, or Roman law and order, or the Roman alphabet, perhaps the most important value FORCED upon the barbarians by their conquerors was simply the work ethic. Previously it had been largely womenfolk who initiated horticulture -- a sort of proto-agriculture. The Romans put a stop to the maurauding and pillaging, and put a damper on hunting (at least restricted it more so to winter months). The northern tribesmen internalized the values "forced" on them. Similarly, with children, there is often a resistence to the MANDATORY aspects of having to go to school, having to live by the rules, having to respect the rights of others, of younger siblings, having to perform chores, learning basic social considerations, manners, duties, obligations. Ideally, transitting the values of society (or the Past) to the succeeding generation would involve a minimum of discomfort or boredom or negative stress. Parents (and perhaps even more, Teachers) should ideally make instruction not only exciting, fun, enjoyable, but there are simply some aspects that, probably for all of us, must be endured, despite the "pain" of a boring teacher. Coaches know the thrill of a challenge, the eu-stress of taking on an objective that, while difficult at first, gives the learner a pride in himself, a joy in accomplishment that offers inspiration and excitement, despite the hurdles which must be overcome. > I strongly agree that the Stockholm Syndrome is highly relevant to the > discussion on this topic, and even germane to the narratives from > webistes like Spank With Love. I believe it is a geocities hosted site. For whatever reason no longer available with a Yahoo disclaimer it has "exceeded it's transfer limit." Must be real popular with pervs. > I even agree with the Patty Hearst lawyers, I don't see you agreeing, below. > what a brilliant ploy it > was to play on the jury's emotions with their sentimental portrait of a > poor little rich girl, "brainwashed" by crafty terrorists into > believing what she didn't believe, doing what she didn't want to do, > participating in bank heists, toting her (was it submachine gun?) all > the while not really meaning to, not really believing in it. I don't recall that being the argument offered. Not if they were to use the Stockholm Syndrome as it actually functions. It would be inaccurate. People that are subject to trauma bonding, by definition, give themselves wholely over to whomever is the object of the bonding. And the rationale used for the "change of heart" is fully integrated. > Maybe it > was the Hearst family's lawyers who were really crafty .... and Patty > herself. What would it be you are then agreeing with them about? > Not that I disagree with the lenience. Our society is far > too harsh as it is, far too punitive-spirited, far too argumentative > and hateful and negative. It wasn't particularly lenient. The sentence was very long indeed, and Hearst had served about 22 months as I recall, coming up on two years, before Jimmy Carter commuted her sentence in 1979. She was subjected to extremely harsh conditions of parole as well. Commuting is leniency as long as it's complete. This wasn't. Here's a rather good explaination of how brain washing actually works. Plus more specific information on what happened to Patty in captivity. I believe they've left out that she was raped daily for 50 plus days by her captor. http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/hearst/5.html?sect=22 > Where I mostly disagree with you is your equation of Discipline with > Spanking. I don't. Those I discuss do. I equate spanking with punishment, not discipline. All discipline is discipline. Not all punishment is discipline. In fact, very little of it is, and what is taught is most often not what the disciplinarian intended. Or it's just cruelty for it's own sake. > I feel very strongly that discipline must, in the end, mean teaching. I don't expect you to have followed my posting history here. It's too long. But I've written on this a number of times, providing similar information. > Etymologically, the Latin word from which we get our word Discipline > includes this meaning (of teaching) at its root. Yes, It's "Discere." You are incorrect. It means "to learn." That is why, to me, the idiocy of using "spanking" to mean "discipline," or "disciplining" is obvious. Who, "to learn," would deliberately choose physical or emotional pain? We learn best when we are attracted to the subject, and pain tends to cause avoidance, not attracion...unless, of course, one has been subjected to the decadent practices of sadism and becomes a masochist. Which is often the case with the spankers that come here. They just don't know it because it's the "norm." > Thus, the aim and > goal of all "discipline" is not to smite helpless victims (obviously it > occasionally seems like it, I know whereof I speak), but to socialize > the learner. With pain? > The goal of all "discipline" is ultimately > self-discipline. If pain is the accepted method of learning to "discipline" one's self (which simply means 'to learn') then you are advocating, as others do, a failed and dangerous pattern of human behavior. I see the evidence all around me, in thta we do NOT move away from things that are painful...such as pollution, war, crime, exploitation, but in fact have been trained to being innured to them and inflicting them without conscience on others. Humans that are lovingly raised, with gentle parents, guidance, and information, have a very hard time ignoring those social negative I listed, and work hard to avoid inflicting them on self or others. The rest of the sh.t heads in the world were, sadly, taught to love those horrors. > Nietzsche grumbled (eloquently) about how the Christian priests and > missionaries crammed their "morality" of weakness down the throats of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (with Armies to back them up) forced upon the free, and masculine > tribesmen. He was a product of a society that warped him by the use of harsh childhood discipline ... and those around him suffered it as well. And no such things happened as a rule. The "free and masculine" tribesman was fiction of the time. Only very small isolated bands with that ethic existed, and they rose and fell by two means. They either were beaten by the "serfs" themselves, and the lords of the manor that protected them, or they ran out of victims and were absorbed into the population, as in China. > I think that the Roman "civilizers" (And I admit their brutality, their > cruelty) had the view that these tribesmen, huntsmen, were little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > little better than hunter-gatherrers, hovering on the brink of > starvation. You seem to have your history, though eloquently presented, a bit mixed up. The Romans were not Christians. Actually that view of tribesman would be about right. There were, however, many that were not wandering bands, but in fact, without "civilization" had settled into farming enclaves. > More important, perhaps, than religion, or Roman law and order, or the > Roman alphabet, perhaps the most important value FORCED upon the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pillaging, and put a damper on hunting (at least restricted it more so > to winter months). Your veiw of the Romans is badly skewed, as to whom they attacked. Or what they put a stop to. In fact the tribesman were a key factor in the destruction of the Roman Empire. Where DO you get this nonsense, out of a bottle? I suggest you read Gibbons. http://www.his.com/~z/gibbon.html > The northern tribesmen internalized the values "forced" on them. Bullshit. They introduced the concepts of personal liberty. And Rome fell by their hand, along with internal corruption and decadence. > Similarly, with children, there is often a resistence to the MANDATORY > aspects of having to go to school, having to live by the rules, having > to respect the rights of others, of younger siblings, having to perform > chores, learning basic social considerations, manners, duties, > obligations. Your metaphore, of course, of the manly tribal people, and them being "forced" to submit is false and a joke to read. Your list has not a single item that cannot be "taught," non-coercively by parents that love, and in turn are loved by, their children. > Ideally, transitting the values of society (or the Past) to the > succeeding generation would involve a minimum of discomfort or boredom > or negative stress. Parents (and perhaps even more, Teachers) should > ideally make instruction not only exciting, fun, enjoyable, but there > are simply some aspects that, probably for all of us, must be endured, > despite the "pain" of a boring teacher. That's why I am a homeschooling advocate. School has far too much boredom and stupidity in the public delivery. And not, there need not be a single aspect that must be 'endured.' > Coaches know the thrill of a challenge, the eu-stress of taking on an > objective that, while difficult at first, gives the learner a pride in > himself, a joy in accomplishment that offers inspiration and > excitement, despite the hurdles which must be overcome. You seem to be babbling rather a lot. You are, of course, a product of the public school system, and likely, spanking parents. Figgers. 0:-> You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but the knowledge is mixed with an element of inaccuracy. I won't comment on your criticism of the fact we homeschooled all our children, and over a period of above a dozen years. My past objections to "public schools" was far from absolute. They perform a function which is needed, but it is also a needed role to highlight their flaws both intelligently and constructively. I hope that is w hat I have done, particularly when my efforts have been published. I was not "defending" the harsh methods used by Romans in subjugating northern Europe and elsewhere, except to say that their "coercive" methods were replicated on a grand scale some thousand plus years later by northern European "colonizers" of new worlds. I concede I have not "followed" your posting history, and that is a limitation I regret. However, you clearly have not followed my own elaboration of the "assisted evolution" of northern Europe from barbarism to "civilization" (if it can so be called). I think we may be able to agree on certain aspects of our differing outlook, certainly not all. A couple instances it almost seemed like we were roughly tinking along similar lines, but you state it completely different (your unique way of expressing your views). Nevertheless I am much at odds with you in your (in effect) attack on non-white people for their predilection for spanking, yet whites themselves have not only spanked their children in days gone by, but committed crimes of violence (to nature particularly) on a scale far grander than anything non-whites have done. We've all heard the jokes by various comedians on Southern black religion, and the occasional trip to the woodshed. Oprah in her first autobio remarked (a bit facetiously) on how the black kids got disciplined! (SPANKED) while the white kids got "talked to." Not all "native folk" have been practitioners of corporal punishment, many have opted for a range on non-coercive tools. (Tools is such a "white" utilitarian word.) You seem to attack others because they are not enlightened like you are, not liberal rationalists like you are. Darwin called for the elimination of the inferior races, and predicted it, simply because of the inexorable power of natural selection. So what if (for example) Martin Luther King were spanked as a kid. Big Deal. So what if Nelson Mandela were spanked as a kid. What's that hurt? It was a different generation. Whites at one time were essentially slaves or at least subjugated under Roman and feudal tutelage. And I can guarantee you it wasn't all sweetness and light. YOU READ GIBBON, that beautiful lily-white atheist. (Then we can talk about force and coercion and mayhem.) Sure I've read some of Gibbon. And not in a public school, I'm telling you. Talk about babbling. Gibbon spent a huge portion of his life, and did his homework. But his perspective!! Now my turn for humor: Is reading Gibbon too much pain for you to inflict on you brain? Not to pick on you, I know the feeling of struggling over tough reading and research. But your smugness towards others sucks. No wonder you attack your (own) predecessors. My people may be GRAFTED ON, culturally, to your superior "Civilization." YOU, the enlightened race of earth, "teach" everyone else your values, then blame others for being stupid. No, others may not be "blessed" with your complection, but the way I look at it, your beauty is skin deep, no different from anyone else. Tom Paine, a white man, said what matters is how we treat one another. Paine scoffed at all the Latin learning, the Greek, and other classical tongues. But he said you ought to put less stock in your "holy" Bible, and get back to basics. "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with the power that made you." If history has been a scourge, let's make sure that we learn the lessons it has for us, not for our own sakes alone, but for those who come after! But who cares. (If I got my spiel out of a bottle) Maybe that's where this came from too. So where'd you get yours? The (white) gods come down to Olympus and give you the real deal? If it's a contest for a smugness trophy, we're both wrong. You for winning at it, me for trying to listen, and then joining in. > You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but the knowledge is mixed with an > element of inaccuracy. I won't comment on your criticism of the fact we > homeschooled all our children, and over a period of above a dozen > years. I criticized homeschooling? Me, and activist advocate, who homeschooled all together four children, and helped other's homeschool theirs? Gee, what did I say? > My past objections to "public schools" was far from absolute. > They perform a function which is needed, but it is also a needed role > to highlight their flaws both intelligently and constructively. I hope > that is w hat I have done, particularly when my efforts have been > published. I agree. I don't like some of the results that PS produces, but I'd be the last to want them closed. They DO in fact, as you say, perform a function, one of which is for those folks not suited to homeschooling by circumstances or their own mindset to have a place ot send their children for education. Not everyone can or should homeschool. If you used it as an excuse to hide your own corporal punishment of your children then I have trouble supporting YOUR decision to homeschool. While a PS attending child has little recourse if his or her parents spank, if it gets out of hand there is at least a chance it will be discovered, reported, and stopped. Homeschooled children can be isolated by CP using parents that in fact escalate to abuse, and it may never be reported. And never stopped. I do NOT approve of spanking children in or out of PS, in or out of HOME, regardless of other circumstances. One of my bitches on this subject comes from having worked with mentally ill children that the parents interpreted as "misbehavior" and created either elaborate emotional and psychological punishment to try and control, or went to CP. To me that's like beating a horse with a broken leg to try and make him run. It's sick. And in many instances parent's don't recognize the symtoms of neurological disorders. They DO appear to be "misbehavior." > I was not "defending" the harsh methods used by Romans in subjugating > northern Europe and elsewhere, except to say that their "coercive" > methods were replicated on a grand scale some thousand plus years later > by northern European "colonizers" of new worlds. What did I say that suggest to you that I thought you were? > I concede I have not "followed" your posting history, and that is a > limitation I regret. Naw, no big deal, but you are welcome, of course. When you run out of google results for my current addy, use pohakuyakokane@subdimension.com. > However, you clearly have not followed my own > elaboration of the "assisted evolution" of northern Europe from > barbarism to "civilization" (if it can so be called). Hmmm....I clearly have not understood your POINT. I have followed quite closely. > I think we may be able to agree on certain aspects of our differing > outlook, certainly not all. A couple instances it almost seemed like we > were roughly tinking along similar lines, but you state it completely > different (your unique way of expressing your views). Nevertheless I am > much at odds with you in your (in effect) attack on non-white people > for their predilection for spanking, No, I do not ATTACK non white people for spanking, because I know that white people here and there and everywhere from one time to another have done far more than their share of spanking. And there are currently white nations where children are spanked harshly ... many of them. Try Russia. > yet whites themselves have not > only spanked their children in days gone by, but committed crimes of > violence (to nature particularly) on a scale far grander than anything > non-whites have done. Oooo....careful with that one. Currently some of the worlds most careless pollutors, per capita, are darker skinned folks. And their destruction of the land is lengendary and likely to get much much worse. Those are cimres against nature, just because they are done by the poor and darker skinned does not require them to be ignored or in fact lied about. I hope you were simply uninformed. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/worldwide.htm " .. By 2050, 8 billion of the world's projected 9.5 billion people will be living in poor countries, the report said, and they will, if present trends continue, be destroying large areas of the earth. "The need is not so much for more consumption or less, but for a different pattern of consumption," Speth told reporters. "We will pay dearly later in migration, in the environment, in other problems." The Human Development Report 1998, like its predecessors, ranks nations according to the life they give their people rather than on the nation's traditional economic figures like per capita gross domestic product. The concept of a "human development index," which is at the heart of the report, was the idea of Mahbub ul Haq, a former finance minister of Pakistan and a World Bank official who died in July. This year Canada, France, Norway, the United States, Iceland, Finland, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand and Sweden rank as the top 10 of the 174 nations surveyed. At the other end of the scale, the 10 least developed countries in human terms are, from the bottom up, Sierra Leone, Niger, Burkino Faso, Mali, Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Guinea, Mozambique and Gambia. ..." I have friends that just returned from the continent of Africa. The portion they visited was universally barren dusty endless nothingingness. Yet there was a small population. Africa is UNDERPOPULATED, of all nations, yet much of it is barren. It has been overgrazed, overfarmed, and NOT subjected to conservation practices by it's peoples. Some of that is colonialism and some is not. This war between classes and races must stop when we look objectively at what IS and IS NOT true about how we are treating this world and each other. I do not care if one color spanks and the other doesn't. The culture choses to spank, regardless of color. Ethicity is used by me to identify the group I'm speaking of culturally. As far as I know there is no other way of identifying them and their relationship to an issue I'm discussing. > We've all heard the jokes by various comedians on > Southern black religion, and the occasional trip to the woodshed. Oprah > in her first autobio remarked (a bit facetiously) on how the black kids > got disciplined! (SPANKED) while the white kids got "talked to." Well, Oprah, as she often is, was wrong. But she misses the mark rather than outright lies. There IS a difference, from careful studies, that show that children in the black community respond differently to a spanking than children from the white community. Because it means something different in each. That of course does NOT excuse using assualt to discipline, after having enculturated your child to associated it with love. In fact it may be far less mentally healthy than the white child's response that their parent is WRONG to hit them and demonstrating lack of love for them. The black child's response reminds me of the battered women that actually believes before (if) she escapes that "she deserves it." Love cannot be expressed by hitting. Or the definition of love is truely f****d by such people. > Not all "native folk" have been practitioners of corporal punishment, > many have opted for a range on non-coercive tools. (Tools is such a > "white" utilitarian word.) I would have sworn I said something similar. > You seem to attack others because they are > not enlightened like you are, not liberal rationalists like you are. Nope. I don't care about your politics or mental state. I care about children being hit and having it called something different than if it were an adult was hit. In effect a child is being told they are not human, since all OTHER humans but them cannot be hit without severe sanctions and consequences. > Darwin called for the elimination of the inferior races, and predicted > it, simply because of the inexorable power of natural selection. On to Darwin now to support a rationale for spanking? Please explain the connection to me. > So what if (for example) Martin Luther King were spanked as a kid. Big > Deal. So what if Nelson Mandela were spanked as a kid. What's that > hurt? > It was a different generation. We cannot say what might have happened had they not been spanked. Do we know in both cases that was true or are we guessing? What might they have accomplished without the spanking? And is it not possible that they overcame it, as so many do ... but so many do not? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and every other little tinpot viscious bloody dictator? Were they spanked, and what might have happened had they not been? > Whites at one time were essentially slaves or at least subjugated under > Roman and feudal tutelage. Roman's weren't white? What is a feudal tutelage? > And I can guarantee you it wasn't all > sweetness and light. Actually there was an improvement over the past. Rome brought a great deal of organization and new forms of government and political thinking with them to the "savages." > YOU READ GIBBON, that beautiful lily-white > atheist. (Then we can talk about force and coercion and mayhem.) I am prone to read atheists. I presume they are not influenced by "the Spirits." I don't care for someone's interpretation of what a god is supposed to have said. When God speaks to me personally I shall throw off my belief in NO gods. > Sure I've read some of Gibbon. And not in a public school, I'm telling > you. Talk about babbling. Gibbon spent a huge portion of his life, and > did his homework. But his perspective!! Why not tell us some of those? > Now my turn for humor: Is reading Gibbon too much pain for you to > inflict on you brain? Not to pick on you, I know the feeling of > struggling over tough reading and research. But your smugness towards > others sucks. Why would I find Gibbon difficult to read? I merely note that his writing is not easy going. Do you or others find him an easy read? > No wonder you attack your (own) predecessors. My people may be GRAFTED > ON, culturally, to your superior "Civilization." Where did you get the idea I consider my "Civilization" 'superior?' It would not exist in the form it does without the input from everyone that has touched it, or been touched by it. The roman legions, much of it, disappeared by absorbsion into the local populations. > YOU, the enlightened race of earth, "teach" everyone else your values, > then blame others for being stupid. Me? YOu mean "white?" Gosh I've not defended the white race, and in fact have been criticised for pointing out certain faults directly traceable to people of white ethnicity. > No, others may not be "blessed" with your complection, but the way I > look at it, your beauty is skin deep, no different from anyone else. I think I'm being babble debated. You are making less and less sense, rather like listening to folks with certifiable mental illnesses. Stream of consciousness with random changes of direction unrelated to the whole. > Tom Paine, a white man, said what matters is how we treat one another. > > Paine scoffed at all the Latin learning, the Greek, and other classical > tongues. But he said you ought to put less stock in your "holy" Bible, > and get back to basics. "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with > the power that made you." I'm an atheist. What would his message mean to me? > If history has been a scourge, let's make sure that we learn the > lessons it has for us, not for our own sakes alone, but for those who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If it's a contest for a smugness trophy, we're both wrong. You for > winning at it, me for trying to listen, and then joining in. Please return to the title of this thread, the subject being, "Baumrind bogus...as Larselere." You are simply rambling on and on with no goal or point. But thanks for playing. 0:-> kane poh -- Why is my point of view labelled rambling. Why cannot my perspective, my gripes, my fury (if that's what it is) count as genuine, and valid? Maybe I was mistaken in assuming you have an arrogant, white, rationalist, liberal view point. I am probably "liberal" in some of my views, or what is often labelled "liberal." All I'm saying is that arrogant people of whatever historic heritage tend to get high and mighty. They tend to evolve "bullying" theories, rationalisms, theologies, philosophies, that excuse the oppression and exploitation of weaker or more vulnerable peoples. There are numerous issues which you went in to which I could pick on. (I don't mean nit pick, because I feel your point of view merits critical scrutiny.) Civilization tends to FORCE its "superior" attitudes on others who have not been so "blesssed." That is what I meant by Roman and feudal tutelage. I do not deny that in many ways the Civilization of Rome, and the West, are indeed positive and beneficial to others. But remember, even the northern Europeans were "grafted on" to the civilization of the Romans, Greeks, and (when they had adopted, or swallowed, the Bible of the Christians ... who got it from the Jews). I admit I am less qualified to get into the nitty gritty of the Baumrind, Larselere scholarship discussion. Passions run high, which probably (partly) reflects the seriousness of the issues. But it also reflects the personalities of the discussants, both good and not so good. I appreciate your familiarity with history. My point about the Romans imposing their law, their agriculture, their writing, their language, and ultimately ... religion too ... is very much what was repeated much later on during the Age of Exploration (read, Age of Colonization) by the very peoples earlier subjugated by the Romans. The missionaries followed in the wake of the ARMIES. It was, truth be told, a matter of conquest, exploitation, and one could almost say ENSLAVEMENT. You point out the good. Some of what was "good" is open to debate. Agriculture and urbanization, for example. Rousseau perhaps went too far in idealizing the natural state, the pristine innocence of the tribes before Civilization got out its whip and "inspired" our ancestors to slave away during the growing season, so there would be food for the babies and old ones during the winters. Is the white man Bible somehow better than the Bible which is found in sunshine and rain, in the brooks and glens, the hills and caves and hollows .... and in the dreams of young men, the hunger induced visions of the elderly? It shouldn't be a white versus non white thing. After all, Aztecs did the Roman thing of trampling down neighboring tribes, then absorbing them into the culture, language, and empire of the Aztecs. They craved a large population so they could multiply the work, and multiply the wealth, that enabled all the glories of their empire. They subjugated, and oppressed, and exploited, then tried to convince the victims that it was a voluntary thing. Doesn't that sound like what Europeans did, wherever they went? Imperialism, sheer and simple. It's FORCE, and they were, if you can believe the clear record of history, ABUSERS of the unarmed and vulnerable tribal folk in their path. > kane poh -- > > Why is my point of view labelled rambling. Why cannot my perspective, > my gripes, my fury (if that's what it is) count as genuine, and valid? Read your posts outloud. If that doesn't answer your question, have someone else read them to you out loud. Please don't post "to" me. I'm not interested in rambling on and on in this fashion. I'm interested in either arguing the fine points of the abusive use of force against children and calling it "spanking" and "discipline" erroneously, or how we might further the changes that must take place to ban spanking, and other forms of CP forever in this and other countries until the whole planet is a kinder and safer place for children. When that happens, it will be a kinder and safer place for all. 0:-> > Maybe I was mistaken in assuming you have an arrogant, white, > rationalist, liberal view point. I am probably "liberal" in some of my [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > history, ABUSERS of the unarmed and vulnerable tribal folk in their > path. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sat 17 Sep 2005 01:01:07a, kane_pohaku@yahoo.com, stripped off their clothing and ran yelling throughout alt.parenting.spanking, the following, contained in news:1126930497.471554.203070@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: Contact them at kane_pohaku@yahoo.com. Henceforth, archived forever to DVD media. >> kane poh -- >> >> Why is my point of view labelled rambling. Why cannot my perspective, >> my gripes, my fury (if that's what it is) count as genuine, and >> valid? Robin, Ms. Kane doesn't want you to post 'to' her unless you agree with her views on things. Below she states to you that she is: 'interested in either arguing the fine points of the abusive use of force against children and calling it "spanking" and "discipline" erroneously, or how we might further the changes that must take place to ban spanking, and other forms of CP forever in this and other countries until the whole planet is a kinder and safer place for children.' > Read your posts outloud. If that doesn't answer your question, have > someone else read them to you out loud. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 0:-> snip The problem is though, her 'debates' quickly turn to trolling, abrasive behavior to those who disagree with her as I have detailed below. If foul language offends, don't read any further. F O U L L A N G U A G E F O L L O W S What awaits those that disagree with Ms. Kane/her definition of debate. To Wit: [11] f.ck you you lying a.shole. [12] I'm insane for seeing this? I'M INSANE, you f.cking nutcase? [13] If I was an attorney and you laid your story out, you'd be looking at a 20K up front free. People such as you are almost impossible to defend. But the next words out of my mouth, after cashing your check would be, "f.cker you open your slimey mouth on this case and your 20k is gone and I'm down the road, got that f.cker?" [14] Want to know who the majority of volunteer are? CPS WORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS FROM THE COURTS, THE MENTAL HEALTH, AND JUVENILE SYSTEMS, YAH f.cking NITWIT. ON THEIR OWN DAMN TIME. [15] How many times, you vicious careless little f.ck, do I have to repeat this until you wake up? [16] But, that, is, not, what, I, meant, you, f.cking, little, weasel. [17] Why you lying son of a bitch. If you were here I'd slap you crosseyed and give you over to one of the thousand or so relative families I've helped, and repeatedly mentioned in this ng. f.ck you, you lying a.shole. [18] Do I approve? You bet your dumb useless child and family hating a.ses I do. f.ck you and your parents rights over children's rights. You are a pack of sick sh.ts. a.sholes. Liars. Fools. And antisocial pricks. [19] The truth is child abuse is a much bigger problem than the public is privy to, both in severity and number. The system is horrendously underfunding that THAT and THAT alone is the basic case of the "malpractice" you prattle on about. They cannot hire enough people, well trained enough, and keep them trained, and keep them long enough to get the experience needed for this horrendous job, and YOU, you f.cking lying creep take advantage of that to peddle your sick sh.t in this ng. Go f.ck yourself. [20] And I'll claim any fuckin' thing I want until YOU go look at MY proferred Linking URL's and confine your remarks to being on topic for what I actually said. [11] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not- for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: State Trooper and Principal Date: 22 Apr 2005 19:37:02 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 393 Message-ID: <1114223822.714087.218920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1114114739.222424.88620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1114119002.382032.296610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <qnW9e.6226$r53.4970@attbi_s21> <1114126383.053433.195700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1114209539.276575.172810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1114214271.324941.220180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <gTgae.12873$c42.1563@fe07.lga> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1114223826 4485 127.0.0.1 (23 Apr 2005 02:37:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:37:06 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <gTgae.12873$c42.1563@fe07.lga> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:71657 [12] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!z14 g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: State Trooper and Principal Date: 23 Apr 2005 14:20:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 483 Message-ID: <1114291249.704324.183770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1114114739.222424.88620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1114119002.382032.296610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <qnW9e.6226$r53.4970@attbi_s21> <1114126383.053433.195700@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1114209539.276575.172810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1114220161.833003.182980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1114285751.353124.42990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1114291254 25577 127.0.0.1 (23 Apr 2005 21:20:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:20:54 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1114285751.353124.42990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:71703 [13] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14 g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: Karen and Jed - NEED Advice on Fighting CPS with a Good Lawyer Date: 14 Apr 2005 16:59:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 162 Message-ID: <1113523157.306817.36210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1113490569.579003.40800@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <FFv7e.1946$tL7.71@fe10.lga> <1113514374.493380.164220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113523175 10916 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2005 23:59:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:59:35 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:71318 [14] Path: number1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp. dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsread.com!newsprint.newsread.com!po stnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.foster-parents,alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: For many foster children, hard life begins as adults Date: 14 Apr 2005 13:14:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 137 Message-ID: <1113509669.272098.147200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <89qn51ho33mg4jgfkm78ratqes7vb704f5@4ax.com> <1113339500.391318.236530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <y8OdnS_rvrfWwcPfRVn-1Q@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1113509694 12941 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2005 20:14:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:14:54 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <y8OdnS_rvrfWwcPfRVn-1Q@comcast.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.foster-parents:36308 alt.support.child-protective-services:71305 [15] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not- for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: the fourth applies Date: 2 Apr 2005 21:18:29 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 384 Message-ID: <1112505509.710369.217850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <424ee0bb$0$16378$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <1112483084.996204.113870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <XzG3e.1729$ja1.478@fe06.lga> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112505514 408 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2005 05:18:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 05:18:34 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:70608 [16] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not- for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: OT Computer question Date: 2 Apr 2005 23:05:17 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 297 Message-ID: <1112509796.612519.261600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <ct63e.16512$NW5.2355@attbi_s02> <_sednQUrjuG6uNPfRVn-sg@comcast.com> <1112422038.511234.85990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <OaGdnWzAFN7wNdPfRVn-1g@comcast.com> <1112481612.031921.87190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <MZWdnbflfLTP7tLfRVn-3w@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112511922 7813 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2005 07:05:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 07:05:22 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <MZWdnbflfLTP7tLfRVn-3w@comcast.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:70610 [17] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!no t-for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: http://courageouskids.net/ Date: 30 Mar 2005 11:32:59 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 381 Message-ID: <1112211179.213273.197970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> References: <1111929341.103645.293670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4246d1ad$0$13916$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <1111952857.370028.174310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <42472bc2$0$2748$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <lcqdnbJRN9TC8dTfRVn-3Q@comcast.com> <1112120340.435561.183370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <w4mdnYeihJNuLdffRVn-1w@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.162.202.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112211186 12609 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2005 19:33:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:33:06 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <w4mdnYeihJNuLdffRVn-1w@comcast.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=205.162.202.52; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:70388 [18] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.meganewsservers.com!news.glorb.com!po stnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: WDNNSCPS Date: 30 Mar 2005 23:53:07 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 30 Message-ID: <1112255587.568181.250130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1111731417.496627.119200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1111731652.469299.275760@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1111731946.187257.265460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1111890497.623046.120770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1112074870.583860.293520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1112075959.977186.93250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4248f4b7$0$16408$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com> <1112082265.818451.3580@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1112246045.203108.53890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112255592 20006 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2005 07:53:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:53:12 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1112246045.203108.53890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:70444 [19] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews .com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not- for-mail From: kane_pohaku@yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: Whistleblowers Catch Foster Fraud; Set sights higher Date: 5 Mar 2005 00:02:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 119 Message-ID: <1110008512.778999.186660@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <u2MVd.3418$WO7.2502@fe03.lga> <1109966924.922191.48770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <wAbWd.31787$Rp.12635@fe06.lga> NNTP-Posting-Host: 148.244.150.58 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1110009725 23541 127.0.0.1 (5 Mar 2005 08:02:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:02:05 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <wAbWd.31787$Rp.12635@fe06.lga> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=148.244.150.58; posting-account=R9nuJw0AAADNvfzGr82sK6ykkReOFQoJ Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:69154 [20] Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nnt p.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.g lorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: pohakuyakokane@yahoo.com (kane) Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Subject: Re: How good is substitute care? Date: 20 Oct 2004 16:38:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 299 Message-ID: <f77b8b6e.0410201538.158f0384@posting.google.com> References: <e2057782.0410052246.5fcc84da@posting.google.com> <10n74c36bs1e3bb@corp.supernews.com> <f77b8b6e.0410181733.270256f8@posting.google.com> <10n9vi7kh92rkb2@corp.supernews.com> <f77b8b6e.0410191512.54a4cc5f@posting.google.com> <10nbje74s1mgrc0@corp.supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.162.202.11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1098315492 9552 127.0.0.1 (20 Oct 2004 23:38:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.support.child-protective-services:63126 - -- Michael Oobalewee Remove 'panties' to reply.™ Postings comply with 17 U.S.C. § 107 and are my sole opinion. Kane, you seem to want to dismiss others point of view, and set yourself up as the final word. You cite scholarly types who expound to great extents, in much breadth and depth, the views you cling to. Yet you dismiss someone else's efforts to bridge to gap, by labelling it rambling. If I treat others with disdain, or set myself up in a pretentious way as wiser than others, do I not risk turning potential friends into enemies? I notice you referred to Hawaii. Each of us has a background, some humble, others more privileged. Does not each person, both as an individual, and as the heir of his own tradition, have a right to assert and express his own unique contribution? What is being a bully? Were the old ones bullies, because they were my teachers? The Europeans were enlightened in many ways, and wiser than other peoples. But not everything "enlightened" is worthy of the name. Darwin despised inferior races, and predicted the "natural" extinction, through the forces of natural selection. Freud despised the "weak" side of himself (despised the feminine side, and considered religion to be feminine.) Nietzsche and Rousseau each shrieked against the great OPPRESSORS of history. For Nietzsche the great oppressor was Christendom and civilization. Rousseau blamed parenting, too, for its part in warping (civilizing) the innocent child, just as Europe warped and corrupted the "noble savage." How true that is, both Nietzsche and also Rousseau. Truly the two great bullies are (1) Civilization or christendom, and (2) Parenting, our parents. They make you do things you don't want to go. make you get dressed, go to school, learn to work. It's all coercion, yet they PRETEND that it aint coercion at all. ..........snip......piles of rambling rubbish and babbling and a continued refusal to discuss the issues of child corporal punishment.....terrible waste of the posters time, and an attempt to waste mine......not going to happen. 0:-> Tom Paine was an interesting codger. He adored the patriots of the Revolution, and hated the alliance between "God" and Govenrment. He was the Prophet of the Revolution (more like rabble rouser). His little book (Common Sense), was printed and reprinted and reprinted and reprinted so many times in such a short period. It stirred up horrific animosity against Britain, against loyalists, and even against Quakers (whom he accused of every sort of pacifist treason) and sgainst other suspected loyalists as well. Many quakers were tarred and feathered because of him. But it took scarcely half a year for the spark he ignited to break into open flames. Common Sense started being printed in January 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed in July. Lincoln, possibly an atheist himself, or at least strongly QUESTIONER of traditional biblical religion, told Billy Herndon he never tired of reading Tom Paine. years later, under arrest during Paris reign of terror, Tom Paine wrote Age of Reason. He seemed to backtrack slightly on his attack against the Quakerism of his childhood. "Faith of our fathers living still???" He seemed to almost apologize for his bitter attacks on them in January of 1776 (Common Sense). When he died, he entreated to be permitted burial next to his (Quaker) father in a Friends burying ground. When he was denied a sense of dark forboding came over him. He prophesied that his body would not be left alone. He was right. Lincoln also had Quaker heritage, plenty of it, and he was intensely embarrassed by it. He was embarassed by the name Abraham. (His grandfather Abraham Lincoln lived and died a deeply devout, observant Quaker.) Quakers more than most other white man religion, showed mercy and compassion on non-whites. They got accused of every heresy and unorthodoxy, even accused of being atheists, being Indian-lover, Negro-lovers. And unapologetically, they said that EVERYONE should be lovers of others. Tom Paine rejected the Bible of the Jews. (And Christians). He was emphatic that he was not a Christian. He claimed that revealed religion was the cause of history's long wicked record of brutality, cruelty, oppression, and every sort of bullying and injustice. I can respect the integrity of Tom Paine in a lot of ways. He called for the elevation of womanhood, a very Quaker attitude. Yet to bitterly assail all faith as being primitive, to lump native "superstition" with the white man record of religious oppression, when in fact many distinctions (and similarities) exist between such diverse traditions, it's an oversight that borders on astounding. Additionally, the white man bible itself denounces the sort of oppression perpetrated by the religious bullies of the world. The white man bible itself denounces spiritual pride, and (in a few places) the fanatacism of the True Believers. There has never been a more outspoken critic of religious pride, mixed with civil power, as Jesus Christ. Yet Christianity missed the point. The treatment of non-white poeples thru history was the most un-Christ-like thing that every happened (except maybe the holocaust of the Jews), also committed by socalled CHIRISTIAN white people. Is that Civilized? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.