 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / January 2006Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment
2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis of a single argument. Usually they muster a battery of reasons to support their view. They do not root their arguments in particular theories of punishment -- theories that justify the institution of punishment -- and say why corporal punishment fails to meet the theoretical requirements. In many cases, this may be because they lack a theory of punishment. However, it should be said in their favor that having a theory of punishment is little help, by itself, in determining whether corporal punishment is ever morally acceptable. This is because the traditional theories of punishment in themselves do not commit one to accepting or rejecting corporal punishment. A number of issues mediate the application of the theories to the question of corporal punishment. For example, for consequentialist theories of punishment, the relevant considerations include the effectiveness of corporal punishment, either as a deterrent or reform, and the extent of any adverse side effects. For retributivists, punishment is justified if it is deserved. Retributivists are not concerned about the consequences of punishment, but they do consider the means of punishment. Thus, an important question for them is whether corporal punishment is an unacceptably cruel or degrading form of punishment. Retributivism per se says nothing about what constitutes an unacceptable form of punishment, just as utilitarianism itself cannot tell what kinds of punishment are effective or harmful. Thus we cannot turn to the theories themselves for answers to these questions. I shall not probe the theoretical foundations or venture any view about which theory of punishment is correct. This is because I take the theoretical background to be largely beyond the scope of this paper. There is a vast literature on whether punishment can be justified and I cannot hope to contribute to that here. Instead, I restrict my attention to the question of corporal punishment. The arguments raised by those who believe that corporal punishment should never be inflicted are that corporal punishment 1) leads to abuse; 2) is degrading; 3) is psychologically damaging; 4) stems from and causes sexual deviance; 5) teaches the wrong lesson; 6) arises from and causes poor relationships between teachers (or parents) and children; and 7) does not deter. I shall now consider each of these arguments in turn.4 a. Corporal punishment leads to abuse Opponents of corporal punishment make regular reference to the frequency and severity of physical punishments that are inflicted upon children. They suggest that corporal punishment "escalates into battering,"5 or at least increases the risk that those who punish will "cross the line to physical abuse."6 Clearly there are instances of abuse and of abusive physical punishment. But that is insufficient to demonstrate even a correlation between corporal punishment and abuse, and a fortiori a causal relationship. Research into possible links between corporal punishment and abuse has proved inconclusive so far. Some studies have suggested that abusive parents use corporal punishment more than nonabusive parents, but other studies have shown this not to be the case.7 The findings of one study,8 conducted a year after corporal punishment by parents was abolished in Sweden, suggested that Swedish parents were as prone to serious abuse of their children as were parents in the United States, where corporal punishment was (and is) widespread. These findings are far from decisive, but they caution us against hasty conclusions about the abusive effects of corporal punishment. The fact that there are some parents and teachers who inflict physical punishment in an abusive way does not entail the conclusion that corporal punishment should never be inflicted by anybody. If it did have this entailment, then, for example, the consumption of any alcohol by anybody prior to driving would have to be condemned on the grounds that some people cannot control how much alcohol they consume before driving. Just as we prohibit the excessive but not the moderate use of alcohol prior to driving, so should we condemn the abusive but not the nonabusive use of corporal punishment. b. Corporal punishment is degrading One argument that is intended as an attack on both mild and severe cases of corporal punishment makes the claim that physically punishing people degrades them. I understand degradation to involve a lowering of somebody's standing, where the relevant sense of standing has to do with how others regard one, and how one regards oneself. It is the interplay between the way we understand how others view us and the way that we view ourselves that produces feelings such as shame. Thus one way in which one might be degraded is by being shamed. In order to respond satisfactorily to the objection that corporal punishment is degrading, clarification is required about whether the term "degrade" is taken to have a normative content, or, in other words, whether it is taken to embody a judgment of wrongfulness. If it is not, then it will not be sufficient to show that corporal punishment is degrading. It will have to be shown that it is unacceptably so before it can be judged to be wrong on those grounds. If, by contrast, "degrade" is taken to embody a judgment of wrongfulness then a demonstration that corporal punishment is degrading will suffice to show that it is wrong. But then the argumentative work will have to be done in showing that corporal punishment is degrading because it will have to be shown that it amounts to an unacceptable lowering of somebody's standing. Either way, the vexing question is whether corporal punishment involves an unacceptable lowering of somebody's standing. Here it is noteworthy that there are other forms of punishment that lower people's standing even more than corporal punishment, and yet are not subject to similar condemnation. Consider, for example, various indignities attendant upon imprisonment, including severe invasions of privacy (such as strip-searches and ablution facilities that require relieving oneself in full view of others) as well as imposed subservience to prison wardens, guards, and even to more powerful fellow inmates. My intuitions suggest that this lowering of people's standing surpasses that implicit in corporal punishment per se, even though it is obviously the case that corporal punishment could be meted out in a manner in which it were aggravated. If corporal punishment is wrong because it involves violating the intimate zone of a person's body, then surely the extreme invasions of prison inmates' privacy, which seem worse, would also be wrong. It is true that corporal punishment involves the application of direct and intense power to the body, but I do not see how that constitutes a more severe lowering of somebody's standing than employing indirect and mild power in the course of a strip-search, for example. It is true too that the prison invasions of privacy to which I have referred would be inflicted on adults whereas corporal punishment would be imposed on children, but again I fail to see how that difference makes physical punishment of children worse. In the case of young children especially, it seems that the element of shame would be less than that of adults given that the capacities for shame increase between the time one is a toddler and the time one becomes an adult. Therefore, if we think that current practices in prison life are not wrong on grounds of degradation, then we cannot consistently say that all corporal punishment is wrong on these grounds. c. Corporal punishment is psychologically damaging It is claimed that corporal punishment has numerous adverse psychological effects, including depression, inhibition, rigidity, lowered self-esteem and heightened anxiety.9 Although there is evidence that excessive corporal punishment can significantly increase the chances of such psychological harm, most of the psychological data are woefully inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild and infrequent corporal punishment has such consequences. One opponent of corporal punishment who has provided data on even mild and infrequent physical chastisement is Murray Straus.10 His research, which is much more sophisticated than most earlier investigations into corporal punishment, does lend support to the view that even infrequent noninjurious corporal punishment can increase one's chances of being depressed. However, for two reasons this research is inadequate to the task of demonstrating that mild corporal punishment is wrong. First, the studies are not conclusive. The main methodological problem is that the studies are not experiments but post facto investigations based on self-reports.11 Murray Straus recognizes this12 but nevertheless thinks that the studies are compelling. The second point is that even if Professor Straus's findings are valid, the nature of the data is insufficiently marked to justify a moral condemnation of mild and infrequent corporal punishment. For instance, the increase of depression, according to his study, is not substantial for rare physical punishment. The increments on his Mean Symptoms Index of depression are only slight for one or two instances of corporal punishment during one's teen years. The increments are somewhat more substantial for three to nineteen incidents of corporal punishment but, surprisingly, for twenty to twenty-nine incidents the Mean Symptoms Index falls again nearly to the level of two episodes of corporal punishment.13 The chances of having suicidal thoughts, according to this study, decreases marginally with one incident of corporal punishment during adolescence, then rises slightly for three to five episodes of corporal punishment. For ten to nineteen instances of physical punishment the likelihood of having suicidal thoughts is approximately the same as it is for those who are not beaten at all during adolescence. The probability increases markedly for more than twenty-nine episodes of physical punishment during one's teens,14 as one would expect when many beatings are administered. Professor Straus does not provide data about how physical punishment during (preteen) childhood affects the likelihood of depression, which would have been interesting given that one might expect corporal punishment to be psychologically more damaging to adolescents than to younger children. Given that even the data suggesting that very rare instances of mild corporal punishment do have some negative effects also suggest that the effects are not substantial, there is a strong likelihood that they could be overridden by other considerations in a consequentialist calculation. In other words, showing some negative effects is not sufficient to make a consequentialist case against all corporal punishment. Other considerations, including possible advantages of corporal punishment, would have to be taken into account. Moreover, because the available evidence shows no serious harm from mild and infrequent corporal punishment, there seem to be poor grounds for suggesting that for retributivists the punishment should be regarded as unacceptably severe. d. Corporal punishment stems from and causes sexual deviance Those who want to outlaw corporal punishment often argue that there are disturbing sexual undercurrents in the practice.15 This objection is, in part, a special instance of the argument about adverse psychological effects. In part it is a separate, but related objection. The argument is that corporal punishment stems from some sexual perversity (on the part of the person inflicting the punishment) and can in turn cause sexual deviance (in the person punished). In some versions of this argument, it is claimed that sadomasochistic relationships can develop between the beater and the beaten. In other versions, only one party -- usually but not always the beater -- may experience sexual excitement through the beating. The beaten person may become sexually repressed. It is no accident, the argument goes, that the buttocks are often chosen as the site on the body to which the punishment is administered. Those who advance the objection that corporal punishment fosters masochism are rarely clear about the nature of the masochistic inclinations that they say are produced. Yet, it is crucial to be clear about this. Studies show that most people have been sexually aroused, either in fantasy or in practice, by at least some mild masochistic activity, such as restraint or play fights.16 Thus, some masochistic tendencies seem to be statistically normal. That does not preclude their being undesirable, but it is hard to see how, in an era of increased tolerance of diversity in sexual orientation and practice, we can consistently label mild masochism as perverse. If such inclinations increase opportunities for sexual pleasure without concomitant harms, then there is at least a prima facie case for the view that such inclinations are not to be regretted. And if one objects to those masochistic inclinations that seek gratification in more serious pain, injury, and bondage, there is no evidence of which I am aware that mild and infrequent corporal punishment fosters such inclinations. The available evidence linking corporal punishment and masochism makes the connection only with milder forms of masochistic fantasy and practice. It is, of course, a concern that some parents or teachers might derive sexual gratification from beating children, but is it a reason to eliminate or ban the practice? Someone might suggest that it is, if the anticipated sexual pleasure led to beatings that were inappropriate -- either because children were beaten when they should not have been, or if the punishment were administered in an improper manner. However, if this is the concern, surely the fitting response would be to place limitations on the use of the punishment and, at least in schools, to monitor and enforce compliance. Here we are not without examples to follow. For example, given the intimacy of a medical examination, the doctor-patient relationship is one that is prone to sexual undercurrents. Needless to say, it is a disturbing thought that doctors may be sexually aroused while examining patients, but we cannot (easily) monitor that. Our response then, is to lay down guidelines to curb any abuses that might ensue. I am aware that medical examinations are necessary in a way in which corporal punishment is not, but corporal punishment might nonetheless fulfill an important function. e. Corporal punishment teaches the wrong lesson It is often said that punishing a wrongdoer by inflicting pain conveys the message that violence is an appropriate way to settle differences or to respond to problems.17 One teaches the child that if one dislikes what somebody does, it is acceptable to inflict pain on that person. This implicit message is believed to reach the level of a contradiction in those cases where the child is hit for having committed some act of violence -- like assaulting another child. Where this happens, it is claimed, the child is given the violent message that violence is wrong. The child is told that he was wrong to commit an act of violence and yet the parent or the teacher conveys this message through violence. Not only are such messages thought to be wrong in themselves, but it is claimed that they are then acted upon by the child who is hit.18 In the short term, those who are physically punished are alleged to commit violence against other children, against teachers and against school property.19 As far as long term effects are concerned, it is alleged that significant numbers of people who commit crimes were physically punished as children. It is these arguments that lie behind the adage "violence breeds violence." Three defenses of (limited) corporal punishment can be advanced against this objection. First, there is a reductio ad absurdum. The argument about the message implicit in violence seems to prove too much. If we suggest that hitting a wrongdoer imparts the message that violence is a fitting means to resolve conflict, then surely we should be committed to saying that detaining a child or imprisoning a convict conveys the message that restricting liberty is an appropriate manner to deal with people who displease one. We would also be required to concede that fining people conveys the message that forcing others to give up some of their property is an acceptable way to respond to those who act in a way that one does not like. If beatings send a message, why don't detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages? The argument proves too much because it proves that all punishment conveys inappropriate messages and so is wrong. It is a reductio because this conclusion is absurd. Those who want to replace punishment with therapy would not be immune to the reductio either. Providing therapy would convey the message that people with whom one disagrees are to be viewed as sick and deserving of treatment. This leads to the second argument. The objection takes too crude a view of human psychology and the message that punishment can impart. There is all the difference in the world between legitimate authorities -- the judiciary, parents, or teachers -- using punitive powers responsibly to punish wrongdoing, and children or private citizens going around beating each other, locking each other up, and extracting financial tributes (such as lunch money). There is a vast moral difference here and there is no reason why children should not learn about it. Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this. To suggest that children and others cannot extract this message, but only the cruder version that the objection suggests, is to underestimate the expressive function of punishment and people's ability to comprehend it. There is a possible response to my arguments. Perhaps it is true that, conceptually, the message that punishment conveys is more sophisticated. Nevertheless, those who are beaten do commit violence against others. It might not be that they got this message from the punishment, but that being subject to the willful infliction of pain causes rage and this gets vented through acts of violence on others. This brings me to my third response. There is insufficient evidence that the properly restricted use of corporal punishment causes increased violence. Although Murray Straus's study suggests that there is a correlation between rare corporal punishment and increased violence, the study has some significant defects, as I noted earlier, and the significance of his findings has been questioned in the light of other studies.20 Nevertheless, Professor Straus's findings cannot be ignored and they suggest that further research, this time of an experimental sort, should be conducted. Note again, however, that even if it were shown that there is some increase in violence, something more is required in order to make a moral case against the corporal punishment that causes it. On a consequentialist view, for example, one would have to show that this negative effect is not overridden by any benefits there might be to corporal punishment. f. Corporal punishment, pupils, teachers, and authority Next there is a cluster of arguments about the relationship between corporal punishment and teacher-pupil relations.21 These arguments make reference to what physical punishment says about such relations, what it does to them, and the impact that this has on education. First, it is claimed that for a teacher to employ corporal punishment indicates that the teacher has failed to discourage pupil wrongdoing in other ways -- by moral authority, by a system of rewards, or by milder punishments. I am sympathetic to the claim that far too many teachers fail to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect between their pupils and themselves. They lack the ability or the inclination verbally to communicate expectations to children -- first gently and then more strenuously. They do not first employ milder forms of punishment but rather resort to the cane in the first instance. Some might not believe in rewarding good behavior, only in punishing bad. However, from the claim that corporal punishment often indicates teacher failure, we cannot infer that it necessarily demonstrates such failure or even that as a matter of fact it always does. It is true that when the teacher resorts to corporal punishment this indicates that his prior efforts to discourage the wrongdoing failed. However, there is a big difference between this, a failure in the pupil, and a failure in the teacher. In either case it is true, in some sense, that the teacher failed to discourage the child from doing wrong -- failed to prevent failure in the child. However, it is not a failure for which the teacher necessarily is responsible. I am well aware that the responsibility for children's wrongdoing is all too often placed exclusively at the door of children themselves, without due attention to the influences to which they are subjected. However, there is a danger that in rejecting this incorrect evaluation, teachers (and parents) will be blamed for all shortcomings in children. This argument can be strengthened further. If we say that corporal punishment indicates the failure of prior efforts, then we must concede that the immediately prior efforts -- say, detaining the child -- equally indicate the failure of the still earlier efforts --admonition -- that indicate the failure of yet earlier efforts -- moral example. Once we see this, it becomes clearer why, although it is the case that earlier efforts may have failed, it is not sufficient to say that the failure is in the teacher. To reject this would lead to the conclusion that the teacher is responsible for the child's not following the teacher's moral example. We can now also see why the argument that corporal punishment indicates failure is as much an argument against any of the prior attempts (except the first) to prevent wrongdoing. Just as school corporal punishment is seen by its opponents as originating in failed pedagogical relationships, so it is believed to compromise them further. Thus it is perceived as exacerbating the very problems from which it arises. The pupils, it is said, begin to fear their teachers and view them as enemies rather than concerned custodians charged with furthering their well-being and development, both mental and otherwise. Education does not thrive in an atmosphere in which children live in fear of those who teach them.22 This opens the way for another objection in this cluster of arguments-that physically punishing children leads to an unquestioning acceptance of authority. If children fear their teachers, they are unlikely to ask questions or challenge views that their teachers present to them. The idea here is that children can be beaten into submission to authority. Again, I have some sympathy for these arguments -- if they are seen to be making the weaker claim that sometimes (even often) teacher-pupil relations are damaged by corporal punishment. I agree too that children can and have been beaten into unquestioning acceptance of authority. Where teachers regularly resort to using the cane and then use it with excessive force, I can well imagine their relationships with their pupils being compromised. Teachers who regularly and severely hit pupils are feared, not respected (though characteristically such teachers are unable to distinguish between the two). In such circumstances it would not surprise me at all if the inquiring, critical capacities of children were dampened or extinguished. However, I disagree that these are inevitable consequences of corporal punishment per se. I cannot see any reason for thinking that infrequent and mild corporal punishment would be likely to have any of these effects. Furthermore, we should note that it is not only corporal punishment that can impact negatively on the educational relationship. Children who are frequently detained, banished from the classroom, or even rebuked (especially when this is done scathingly and publicly) can suffer feelings of alienation from their teachers. One does not have to resort to sticks to force children into submission. The tongue can do just as well. My argument here is not to justify one evil by the existence of another. The point is that just as in these cases we attack the excesses not the practices themselves, so should we attack only the abusive use of corporal punishment. It makes a big difference not only how frequently and severely corporal punishment is inflicted, but also the kinds of behavior for which it is administered. Where children are beaten for expressing unpopular ideas or for asking too many questions, the argument that it will lead to subservience to authority is greatly strengthened. Similarly, if children are paddled for not displaying servile deference to teachers, the relationship between them and their teachers is sure to suffer. However, if children are punished for genuine wrongdoing -- lying, cheating, stealing, bullying -- then the message is that this behavior is unacceptable. Teachers can foster critical inquiry and support the right to express even unpopular opinions, while at the same time punishing genuine wrongdoing. Children are able to distinguish between these.  SignatureCERM-Church Education Resource Ministries http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/ John 14:6 Jesus answered, ³I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. AIM-Crucifyself03 > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment <snip plagiarized stuff> Give proper credit when citing somebody else's material. >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > > <snip plagiarized stuff> > > Give proper credit when citing somebody else's material. Having worked in an environment where corporal punishment was absolutely banned and where the incoming children had been punished in such a manner, there is only one thing that can be said about banning it. IT WORKS. Even kids screamed at, slapped, and spanked for every minor infraction quickly adjusted to time outs and almost without exception became better behaved in a very short time. When asked they would impose the time out on themselves and it was *always* for a longer period than the adult would impose. They rarely repeated. I was rarely spanked as a child and it never had any effect on me. There is no love, respect or justice in the inability of an adult to resort to violence to try to solve a problem. > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > > Those who oppose corporal punishment do not normally do so on the basis > of a single argument. --------------------- Here's only one, and it comprises all the others inherently: We have a 14th Amendment right to due process of law and equal protection. That process can procede well into the future in any criminal case, and require longer than the life of the original defendant if new evidence is discovered or new or altered witness is discovered. Execution deprives the defendant of the opportunity to benefit from reversals of verdict possible in any system which continues to investigate crime and process new evidence after penalty, as well as the opportunity to participate in his ongoing defense. Thus no capital penalty can legally be imposed and still preserve the defendant's alienable right of due process and equal protection under the Constitition of the United States. Capital punishment's days are numbered upon a calendar that contains the date upon which a man is put to death and then prominently and publically found to later be innocent. It may already have occurred. On that day the hue and cry against it will excede all previous efforts, and it will collapse of its own ponderous unconstitutional weight. The Supreme Courts of the various States will one by one declare capital punishment a violation of due process and equal protection under the 14th, and that will be it. The SCotUS will then agree, or more likely for their cowardly ilk, they will decline to hear the case, and it will stand as new Constitutional principle without their imprimatur. > Usually they muster a battery of reasons to > support their view. They do not root their arguments in particular > theories of punishment -- theories that justify the institution of > punishment -- and say why corporal punishment fails to meet the > theoretical requirements. ----------------- The requirement of any punishment is that it deter, and it obviously does not deter, as murder rates go UP in every state and nation where execution has been increased. Some people see being killed as attractive especially to have the state do it. A variation of suicide by cop. > In many cases, this may be because they lack a > theory of punishment. However, it should be said in their favor that > having a theory of punishment is little help, by itself, in determining > whether corporal punishment is ever morally acceptable. ------------------ The morality of killing people was decided long ago by Moses et alia. Argue that one on friday night or on sunday if you wish. And, as an exigency in a pinch when naught else is available, most affirm it utility. But the morality of killing is not the question, but whether it is consistent with the Constitution, and since "due process" has an ongoing capacity to reverse convictions and right the wrong of unjust penalties, execution deprives the INNOCENT of that right. Nobody, including me, cares what you do with the GUILTY, but you see, in our system of laws, nobody is finally proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, but only beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and new evidence or new witness can change that! So it is for the Innocent that we seek Constitutional protection, and not for the guilty, however, those are always ONLY PROVISIONALLY DETERMINED, and ARE LEGALLY REVERSIBLE!! Now unless you wish to enshrine a system of laws where even a person who is convicted and later found to be innocent must still suffer the penalty, some "too late" principle in law, then you will need to accede to the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which you obviously need to re-read, and with the many commentaries on it. The basic inherent principle behind that Amendment bars such final punishments such as amputations, torture, and execution, and it is because we might later find we have erred and need to offer a reversal and compensation. -- I've always wondered why we kill off all that good flesh anyway, we should either enslave them surgically and electronically, if we don't care about them, or at least eat them to avoid such waste. Steve >>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > don't care about them, or at least eat them to avoid such waste. > Steve Corporal is NOT the same as capital punishment. > >>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > >> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Corporal is NOT the same as capital punishment. --------------------------------- Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death. Steve > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death. > Steve Yet, you support abortion. Your logic is absurd. Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the execution of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support abortion on demand. > > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death. > > Steve > > Yet, you support abortion. Your logic is absurd. ----------------- Fetuses are not children. Nor are they even human beings. You're confusing yourself again. > Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the execution > of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support abortion on > demand. ------------------- Abortion is not murder because fetuses are not children, not people. No human recalls being a fetus, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE YET!! Steve >> > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death. >> > Steve [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nor are they even human beings. > You're confusing yourself again. Stop diluting yourself Steve. >> Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the >> execution of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No human recalls being a fetus, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE YET!! > Steve Do you recall the first birthday party your parents had for 'you' when you were 365-days old? If not, does that mean you weren't human at the age of 1? > >> > Irrelevant. The Evil who abuse children corporally deserve death. > >> > Steve [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stop diluting yourself Steve. --------------------- Nobody even knows what the hell you just said, even you. > >> Strange thing about you liberals. You stand in protest against the > >> execution of a murderer like Stanley 'Dookie' Williams - Yet support [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > were 365-days old? If not, does that mean you weren't human at the age of > 1? --------------------------- Hell, I don't recall my last birthday that well, but I REMEMBER that I USED to remember it, and that's the Personal Story that is remembered as our Life, our Self. Until you have one of those, you ain't anybody! Steve > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment Perhaps you can digest your plagiarized response to answer my earlier question, restated here: In those situations where time-outs and witholding privleges works as well as, if not better than, corporal punishment, why would you prefer to inflict pain? >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >well as, if not better than, corporal punishment, why would you prefer >to inflict pain? One shouldn't. But that is never the question. Rather, it is always what the liberals try to turn the question into, in an attempt to dodge the question about what they would do, if the things they mentioned don't work. Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 www.drdino.com >>> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the question about what they would do, if the > things they mentioned don't work. The thing is this, in this argument. Some people, I suspect you, look at discipline as a single act in time to get a child to do as they are told. Some people, myself included, look at discipline as basically the entire dynamic of how the family lives and works together for the common end. I find that spankers who say those other things don't work 1. Don't really understand what those other things are. 2. Execute those other things with such misunderstanding and lack of consistency that they can't work. 3. Don't really bother with more than a token effort to do those other things because they require thought and effort. Stephanie, Excellent response. In talking to spankers who claim that spanking "works" when other strategies do not "work," I have found what you suggest below to be true. Rather than viewing guidance and discipline as part of the family system that helps children reach their full potential, these individuals do view discipline as a single act in time for the sole purpose of getting children to "do as they are told." Discipline is a process of guiding and teaching. Good discipline involves forming appropriate expectations for children at different ages and stages of development, understanding strategies that help children develop the skills and understanding necessary to meet those expectations, and always keeping in mind the ultimate goal in parenting, guiding, and disciplining children in ways that allow them to grow up to be the very best they can be. Immediate compliance was never high on my list of parenting priorities. I wanted to raise children who questioned the status quo, who made good behavioral choices for the right reasons, who were independent and had a strong sense of self, and who had internalized high levels of moral reasoning. I made mistakes when parenting my girls. No one is perfect. I learned to apologize to them, and they also learned about a sincere apology when they truly believed the apology was warranted. I never spanked them, and when I look at them at 23 and 26 years old, I know I made a good parenting decision. LaVonne >>>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 3. Don't really bother with more than a token effort to do those other > things because they require thought and effort. >Stephanie, > >Excellent response. In talking to spankers who claim that spanking >"works" when other strategies do not "work," Why is it "an excellent response" to lie about people and classify them as "spankers", when they say that it is done as a last resort? Tell me, am I "a spanker", because I spanked my child twice, 9 years ago? Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 Matthew 16:27-28 27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Jesus said He would return within the lifetime of the Apostles. we know this, because Jesus said SOME (at least one, not not most) would be alive when this happened. This is not the Transfiguration. There was no coming with the Father's angels and no judging every man according to His works and they were all still alive. This is not Pentecost. There was no coming with the Father's angels and no judging every man according to His works and they were all but one, still alive. Now see a verse that no one argues is about His Second Coming and see that this is what Jesus was referring to, in Matthew 16:27-28. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." - Revelation 22:12 > >Stephanie, > > > >Excellent response. In talking to spankers who claim that spanking > >"works" when other strategies do not "work," > > Why is it "an excellent response" to lie about people It's not a lie. > and classify them as "spankers", when they say that > it is done as a last resort? It's not a lie. The reason for using, and making it a "last resort," isn't sufficient to say they aren't a spanker. Last or first, or middle, if someone is a spanker then they are. Wouldn't you say, logically? > Tell me, am I "a spanker", because I spanked my child > twice, 9 years ago? Yes. You are, just as you are a canoeist, if you canoed 10 years ago, and haven't sworn off it. . Have you decided against ever spanking again? If so you no longer qualify as a spanker. I haven't played guitar seriously in over a year, yet I did play for many years. I am therefore a guitarist. I don't garden much right now, but I'm a gardener. I would say, given that I haven't trained a horse in over twenty years, and don't intend to, I can no longer be referred to as a horse trainer, but I certainly was one, and if someone "your are a horse trainer," I wouldn't try to argue them out of it, I'd simply define it more clearly for them. Would you say then that you "were a spanker?" Do you support spanking? Then to me you are a "compulsive." That is someone that regardless of their own actions, defends and supports the use of corporal punishment. The name hardly matters. The intent, the actions, speak much more loudly. Best Wishes, Kane >> >Stephanie, >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >to say they aren't a spanker. Last or first, or middle, if someone is >a spanker then they are. Wouldn't you say, logically? You are assuming that your claim is correct and that I must measure up to your standard, which will change according to whatever it takes to label me as a child abuser. >> Tell me, am I "a spanker", because I spanked my child >> twice, 9 years ago? > >Yes. You are, just as you are a canoeist, if you canoed 10 years ago, >and haven't sworn off it. . No, that would make me a former canoeist. And your rant won't help you. Your false labeling of me as a child abuser, which is exactly what you are trying to say, is just that. A false labeling. >Have you decided against ever spanking again? Absolutely not. If it becomes necessary again, I will spank him again. You simply wish to label anyone who doesn't try to be their childs "best buddy" as a child abuser. That's okay for you. I'll be the one paying for your child's incarceration. Of course, you probably don't have any children and you're just one of those idiots who think they know how to raise a child and can tell everyone else how to, because you read a book. :) >If so you no longer qualify as a spanker. I did not say I wouldn't spank. I was using it as a present tense verb. But you knew that already. >Do you support spanking? When absolutely necessary and all else fails. >Then to me you are a "compulsive." That is someone that regardless of >their own actions, defends and supports the use of corporal punishment. Now you label me as "compulsive". This is the typical liberal twisting, If someone is not what is convenient for your claims, then just wave your magic wand, turn them into straw and build a straw man. >The name hardly matters. Then why label me? Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 Romans 13:11-2 11) And that, knowing the time, that NOW it is high time to awake out of sleep: for NOW is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12) The night is far spent, the day is AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. >>Stephanie, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and classify them as "spankers", when they say that > it is done as a last resort? I was responding to Stephanie, who was working towards no spanking, who did not believe is spanking, and who did not believe that spanking should be done as a last resort. > Tell me, am I "a spanker", because I spanked my child > twice, 9 years ago? Because you believe in spanking, as the post you so conveniently clipped described, and because if one believes in spanking "as a last resort" one is a spanker. LaVonne >>>Stephanie, >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >described, and because if one believes in spanking "as a last resort" >one is a spanker. Gee, now if you could only prove that spanking a child automatically equals abuse. You do what you want and believe what you want. Meanwhile, my child will grow up respectful, while yours is a brat. But then again, I don't beat my child and I don't spank, when other things work. But you go ahead and pretend I do, because that suits your agenda. Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 www.drdino.com >>>>Stephanie, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Gee, now if you could only prove that spanking a child > automatically equals abuse. Why? She never said anything about abuse. You asked if you were a "spanker." She described what a "spanker" is, in her view. I am curious, do you read the posts you reply to? > You do what you want and believe what you want. > Meanwhile, my child will grow up respectful, while > yours is a brat. But then again, I don't beat my child > and I don't spank, when other things work. But you go > ahead and pretend I do, because that suits your agenda. Funny, she never said any such thing. > >>>Stephanie, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Gee, now if you could only prove that spanking a child > automatically equals abuse. You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? But to answer your question, yes, it does, and proof has been posted here many times. Read the archives. All that stands between it being legally defined as assault is a quirk in law that allows a chid to be hit by a parent, but not an adult. Sure logical, isn't it? 0:-> > You do what you want and believe what you want. That seems to be the human condition. What happens next though has to do with facts and logic. Got any? > Meanwhile, my child will grow up respectful, while > yours is a brat. Neither of LaVonne's children, nor my four, are brats. Why is that I wonder? In fact I believe LaVonne's tend to be rather like mine: overachievers with no criminal record. Amazing, eh? > But then again, I don't beat my child > and I don't spank, when other things work. I can't tell you how pleased I am to read that. However, other things always work. It's a matter dedication to finding those "other things." And not demanding compliance and performance that is inappropriate for the circumstances. > But you go > ahead and pretend I do, because that suits your agenda. Reading your words and giving their intepretation of them is not "pretending" anything. You did not clarify as you just did now. And even now you equate with a "spanker." That is the question you asked is it not? It was answered. If you are not a "spanker" please explain. Or could it be you are pretending to yourself that you are not when you have, and you defend it, and you are willing to do it again "when other things" don't "work?" Would you call that a "non-spanker?" We'd be more than happy to have you join us, if you believe you are not, but you might find it kind of rough going with what you defend and what you claim you do when other methods don't work. Don't you find it rather odd that millions use other methods and never have them "fail," as in "don't work?" I've a hunch you do fit my own description of most of the spanking advocates that come here...compulsive. If you'd like to explain what you do, in fact, when spanking doesn't work, please do. For you see, spanking doesn't. And it will come to you sooner or later, one way or the other, easy or hard. I pity the child, and you, when they reach their teens and you have only two choices: give up, or beat them to death to force compliance. Think it won't happen? Many a parent didn't wait for the teen years. We see them in the news day to day. Best, Kane >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? As I thought. A moron. >But to answer your question, yes, it does, and proof has been posted >here many times. Sure. Whatever you need to convince yourself of. >All that stands between it being legally defined as assault is a quirk >in law that allows a chid to be hit by a parent, but not an adult. Sure >logical, isn't it? 0:-> So in other words, the law doesn't matter to you. But of course, if it were to become illegal, then you would tell us how even the law says it's wrong. You argue from emotion and convenience, not logic, not facts. Goodbye. Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 Hebrews 1:1-2 1) God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2) Hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; > >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? > > As I thought. A moron. Please don't open with name calling. You are entering a dangerous zone when you do. Did you wish to debate the issues? > >But to answer your question, yes, it does, and proof has been posted > >here many times. > > Sure. Whatever you need to convince yourself of. Did you wish to debate the issues? > >All that stands between it being legally defined as assault is a quirk > >in law that allows a chid to be hit by a parent, but not an adult. Sure > >logical, isn't it? 0:-> > > So in other words, the law doesn't matter to you. Oh? What in my comment would suggest that? All "law" matters to me, and most assuredly because law can be changed. This one is being changed all over the world. And soon, here. It certainly has changed for US schools, or haven't you noticed? > But of course, if it were to become illegal, then > you would tell us how even the law says it's wrong. No, I'd say the law got it right. Because it's wrong regardless. For many reasons. Some of which are posted here over the years. Basically for me it's wrong in two ways, morally wrong, and as a former mental health worker with adolescents, wrong for the development of children. > You argue from emotion and convenience, not logic, > not facts. Gee, it looks to any objective observer that you in fact are doing just that; arguing from emotion and not logic and not facts. In fact, it looks like you have been reading some of the facts I've posted and you find them inconvenient. I know. > Goodbye. In other words you have no facts or logic to bring to the issue in the face of the facts and logic presented by my argument and that of other anti CP advocates here. I see. Tah. 0:-> >> >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No, I'd say the law got it right. Because it's wrong regardless. For > many reasons. Some of which are posted here over the years. Personally, I am not nuts about the idea of the law interfering with parents' decision making authority. For wrong or right, parents are ultimately responsible for their children. That is not to say I don't think children should be protected from abusive parents. But changing the law to make spanking illegal would neither help reshape less helpful parenting ideas nor protect children from the greater problem of other things that the parent would choose to substitute for spanking. And I suspect that the removal of children from the home has become a nice little cottage industry in some places. I fear government's over involvement in family life. Government in USA shifts with the changing winds. And I don't view meddling positively. > Basically for me it's wrong in two ways, morally wrong, and as a former > mental health worker with adolescents, wrong for the development of > children. What is the remedy if it were to become illegal? And how much good would it do to make it illegal without replacing it with real understanding of alternatives? You just substitute physical pain for the less obvious emotional pain of shame, belittling and the like. Or the weird roller coaster ride of removal of unrelated priveledges and the crazy reward system. Illegalization is not a remedy IMO. Only time and an increase in the population of people who were brought up on a diet of respect, self esteem, problem solving skills and real confidence will turn the tide IMO. This will only change for the better one family at a time. >> You argue from emotion and convenience, not logic, >> not facts. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 0:-> > >> >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Personally, I am not nuts about the idea of the law interfering with > parents' decision making authority. You of course have no need to, though I welcome it, bring up my posting history, but it was only this year (and I've posted here for some time) that I moved from my position very like yours, to finally accepting we won't see much progress until there is a law. Those that want to change, for the most part, have done so. > For wrong or right, parents are > ultimately responsible for their children. That is not factual. In fact, the state accepts varioius responsibilities for us all, and moreso for those who cannot take care of themselves. The disabled, frail elderly, indigent, and children. > That is not to say I don't think > children should be protected from abusive parents. Are you unaware that your arguments do amount to that? Even the statement about ultimate responsibility says that even abusive parents would have a right to decision making. > But changing the law to > make spanking illegal would neither help reshape less helpful parenting > ideas nor protect children from the greater problem of other things that the > parent would choose to substitute for spanking. You bring up a very valid and critical point. It has two answers. One, the stick. Those that are believers in "punishment" making others do what is desired would be prime candidates for that method used upon them. They tend, often because that IS where they came from in their life experience, NOT to comply unless there is some threat. Two, the carrot. Even those, and certainly the rest of us, can be tempted and motivated by some reward offered. And of course, though I didn't say, there is always Number Three: education. A great many folks, when offered the stick, the carrot, and a way out, education, will be prone to take that way. Nothing is 100% of course, but it can work and has. Even spanking advocates, such as Larzelere point out that other methods should be used. And those methods are generally referred to, while I've offered in this ng, as have others, to more specific information. Education. One of the best I've found for families that are not pathological and/or do not have a child with severe behavioral problems (we are talking clinical issues here) is Tom Gordon's work. I know it well, knew him at one time, trained with his people as an instructor. Watched the methods spread out into the community to the point they aren't even identified with him and PET anymore. Though he was the first to share such methods with the public. There are others that work well. The major problem to overcome is the still lingering belief that "children are out to get you," and believe me, it prevails in child abuse cases where the parent went too far with "discipline," which is true in the majority of abuse cases. The only way out of that nonsense belief is education. Specifically early childhood development information so people know and understand what drives and motivates child behaviors they mark as 'misbehavior.' The whole game changes when the parent knows what is happening and how to assist the child in getting the developmental experience they need in a safe manner, to further their growth and reach more of their potentials. > And I suspect that the > removal of children from the home has become a nice little cottage industry > in some places. Ho hum. You have no idea. This lie is very popular all over the place. It's so easy to make such a lie sound realistic, but in fact, most people in this "industry" would much rather it go away and they move on to some other line of work. It is no fun seeing abused and neglected children. > I fear government's over involvement in family life. You should. So do I. I fear central government more than local. But then I would have feared it when slavery was in vogue too. The issue is a moral and ethical one. Will be continue to provide special "lessor" status to children, as we once did to blacks, and to women, and to the poor, or will we provide children with the same basic protection against assault and battery all these now enjoy? Hell, in most areas pets have more legal protection by the state than children. > Government in USA shifts with the changing winds. And I don't view meddling > positively. Neither do I, that's why I don't take my change over lightly. And why I resisted for over 50 years. Yes, I've been a proponent of gentle parenting methods (and against CP) for that long. And only THIS YEAR did I support law. Considering that's it's always been partially a moral (but always a practical matter from a mental health standpoint) issue, that is very embarrassing to me. You see, when I was against the law, children were still being "assaulted" (had the law been in place). > > Basically for me it's wrong in two ways, morally wrong, and as a former > > mental health worker with adolescents, wrong for the development of > > children. > > What is the remedy if it were to become illegal? Do we still have slavery? Assuming you are a women, can you vote, inherit, contract? Must you be landed to vote? > And how much good would it > do to make it illegal without replacing it with real understanding of > alternatives? The alternative to slavery is.... ? The alternative to denying women the rights men have is .... ? Did we have to wait for all the answers before laws changing those things happened? Or did we learn after we had to? The economy did not, as was claimed would happen at the time, collapse in the United States without slaves. And believe it or not, it turned out that women did not really suffer from "The Vapors," nor were they too sensitive and "emotional" to participate in political, economic, and public life. Though it's rumored some men still think they are. > You just substitute physical pain for the less obvious > emotional pain of shame, belittling and the like. Why would someone denied the right to hit their child simply go to "shame, belittling and the like?" Why not go wholehog and make it illegal to do that? In fact, I've a surprize for you. Most states do in fact have child protection laws that list "shaming and belittling" under or as emotional or psychological abuse. > Or the weird roller > coaster ride of removal of unrelated priveledges and the crazy reward > system. This claim comes right out of the many arguments of the pro spank folks repertoire. Why do you assume that non-spankers are automatically supporters of unrelated priveledge removal and crazy reward systems? Could it be possible that people that care about ending child assault (spanking) also would like to end and replace OTHER forms of abusive child rearing? Have you not heard of "logical and natural consequences?" Or positive behavior management? What a lot of folks find, that have children and determine against, or change from, spanking is that relationship is the most powerful force between parent and child. And they look for ways to make that work for the child. And it works. Tom Gordon's work was about that very thing. Read PET yet? Been around for years, and still it is the best and simplest of explanations for parenting in this supportive way. > Illegalization is not a remedy IMO. I used to agree with you, struggling all the while with knowing that children were being hit in the same fashion that was illegal to hit an adult. > Only time and an increase in the > population of people who were brought up on a diet of respect, self esteem, > problem solving skills and real confidence will turn the tide IMO. This will > only change for the better one family at a time. Hmmm...you sound a bit like me. I'm here to tell you that is not true. Child protection services all over the country know better. And even simple logic would tell you that those that were spanked, just as those raised on a political party, tend to carry it into adulthood. The progress is far too slow. And for each child hit, today wouldn't be soon enough. Thank you for your comments and thoughts. I greatly admire those that do not lie to make their pro spanking point. We have so very much of that here. I figured 50 years was long enough to wait, and I also see that now's the time...that conditions are right. I doubt they'll ever be more right. At least in my country. Kane > >> You argue from emotion and convenience, not logic, > >> not facts. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > 0:-> >> >> >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You of course have no need to, I guess it depends. If the majority decides that by law parents must... teach their kids that homosexuality is immoral, well then the shoe will be on the other foot. > though I welcome it, bring up my posting > history, but it was only this year (and I've posted here for some time) > that I moved from my position very like yours, to finally accepting we > won't see much progress until there is a law. Those that want to > change, for the most part, have done so. One small thing that you missed about my point was that it really won't BE a change if forced by law. If there is not heart change and understanding change, then it is just substitution from one punishment to another. >> For wrong or right, parents are >> ultimately responsible for their children. > > That is not factual. It should be. Would that all parents took it that seriously. > In fact, the state accepts varioius > responsibilities for us all, and moreso for those who cannot take care [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you unaware that your arguments do amount to that? Nope. I am merely saying that the line, whereever it lies, is nebulous. And the idea that Big Brother knows better than parents is a dangerous one. Who is the authority with the wisdom to arbitrate these things. I tread cautiously about calling spanking abuse. I was spanked as a kid, by my Dad. And I tell you it was a whole lot less damaging, coming as it did with that very believable lecture that it would hurt him more than it would hurt me because he was a big fat softy, than my Mom's ugly words. Luckily for me my parents were acting in good faith and the overall upshot was that I hope my failings are as mild as theirs. So was the spanking abuse? I would say not from a strictly outcome point of view. For me, the problem cannot be solved by the eradication of the practice of spanking. > Even the > statement about ultimate responsibility says that even abusive parents [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Those that are believers in "punishment" making others do what is > desired would be prime candidates for that method used upon them. If you deny it's effectiveness, why would you suggest this? That's vengence pure and simple. You cannot educate grown ups with vengence anymore than you can kids. And by what right would those among us who beleive we are right inflict pain on those who beleive they are right. It is hubris to think we have a lock on right. And doing wrong to make right is a moral fallacy that simply does not work. > They > tend, often because that IS where they came from in their life [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even those, and certainly the rest of us, can be tempted and motivated > by some reward offered. Read Madelyn Swift's Discipline for Life; Getting it Right with Children. It's a good book. In any event, paying or rewarding people will not change their hearts and their understanding which is necessary to make punive people into positive people. So I see it still as completely ineffective. > And of course, though I didn't say, there is always Number Three: > education. That is where the generations come in, I am afraid. > A great many folks, when offered the stick, the carrot, and a way out, > education, will be prone to take that way. Nothing is 100% of course, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There are others that work well. The major problem to overcome is the > still lingering belief that "children are out to get you," Amen and alleluhiah to that. They certainly come uncivilized and for that they need us. But too many people give children too little credit IMO. As a result they set the bar too low and kids suffer the consequences. > and believe > me, it prevails in child abuse cases where the parent went too far with > "discipline," which is true in the majority of abuse cases. > > The only way out of that nonsense belief is education. Absolutely. And whether we want it or not, real education, the assimilation, acceptance and ownership of information can happen on no one's time table but the recipient. But the more it is out there the better IMO. > Specifically > early childhood development information so people know and understand [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to some other line of work. It is no fun seeing abused and neglected > children. I know around where I live there is no industry for foster kids. But I do know that their foster experience is often way worse than their home experience. My Mom, a lawyer who does a lot of pro bono gardian ad litem work, told me the story of a mother whose children were removed from the home -- because it was DIRTY. And we are not talking mouse droppings or anything. Single Mom chose to spend her evenings reading to her kids before collapsing into bed. My Mom is a kick a.s lawyer and the kids wound up back with Mom. But there is no way you can convince me that the system of removing kids from the home is not utterly f.cked up, and needs some major fixing. >> I fear government's over involvement in family life. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > moral (but always a practical matter from a mental health standpoint) > issue, that is very embarrassing to me. Well who knows. Give me 50 years and maybe I will change my tune. > You see, when I was against the law, children were still being > "assaulted" (had the law been in place). Had the law been in place, parents would have hidden better or changed to verbal abuse. The law would have fixed nothing. >> > Basically for me it's wrong in two ways, morally wrong, and as a former >> > mental health worker with adolescents, wrong for the development of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inherit, contract? > Must you be landed to vote? Point? You did not answer the question. What's the remedy. As a woman, I can take care of myself. >> And how much good would it >> do to make it illegal without replacing it with real understanding of >> alternatives? > > The alternative to slavery is.... ? This is not a useful analogy. Children need grown ups to take care of them. Grown up black people do not. > The alternative to denying women the rights men have is .... ? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > participate in political, economic, and public life. > Though it's rumored some men still think they are. >> You just substitute physical pain for the less obvious >> emotional pain of shame, belittling and the like. > > Why would someone denied the right to hit their child simply go to > "shame, belittling and the like?" Because they have no real knowledge of real discipline. Doing nothing is also not a useful alternative in the raising of children. > Why not go wholehog and make it illegal to do that? Well that would certainly make for an interesting set of court proceedings. I thought *I* was a radical liberal! > In fact, I've a surprize for you. Most states do in fact have child > protection laws that list "shaming and belittling" under or as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This claim comes right out of the many arguments of the pro spank folks > repertoire. So refute it. I never read too deep in to the true spanking zealots. > Why do you assume that non-spankers are automatically supporters of > unrelated priveledge removal and crazy reward systems? Because non-punitve discipline is HARDER given that it has not been part of our societal consciousness for the last 100 years. Support or no support, people will do what's easily at hand. > Could it be possible that people that care about ending child assault > (spanking) also would like to end and replace OTHER forms of abusive > child rearing? Certainly. That's why I don't think an anti-spank law is effective. > Have you not heard of "logical and natural consequences?" Or positive > behavior management? I have. But I don't think I would be terribly impacted by an anti-spank law. > What a lot of folks find, that have children and determine against, or > change from, spanking is that relationship is the most powerful force > between parent and child. And they look for ways to make that work for > the child. And it works. No sh.t. Me choir, you preacher. Completely beside my point. > Tom Gordon's work was about that very thing. Read PET yet? Been around > for years, and still it is the best and simplest of explanations for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm here to tell you that is not true. Child protection services all > over the country know better. Good for them. When they stop being part of the problem, maybe I will listen to them. Now I don't discredit the individuals and what they are trying to do. But the framework in which they work sets them up to fail and it has to be changed. > And even simple logic would tell you that those that were spanked, just > as those raised on a political party, tend to carry it into adulthood. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the time...that conditions are right. I doubt they'll ever be more > right. At least in my country. Well for the mometn I will not be voting with you on this one. > Kane > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > >> > 0:-> > >> >> >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? > >> >> As I thought. A moron. > >> > > >> > Please don't open with name calling. You are entering a dangerous zone > >> > when you do. Did you wish to debate the issues? > >> > > >> >> >But to answer your question, yes, it does, and proof has been posted > >> >> >here many times. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> >> >quirk > >> >> >in law that allows a chid to be hit by a parent, but not an adult. > >> >> >Sure > >> >> >logical, isn't it? 0:-> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> > > >> > All "law" matters to me, and most assuredly because law can be changed. > >> > This one is being changed all over the world. And soon, here. It > >> > certainly has changed for US schools, or haven't you noticed? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I guess it depends. If the majority decides that by law parents must... > teach their kids that homosexuality is immoral, well then the shoe will be > on the other foot. When such attempts at analogy fail, they fail bigtime. Usual cause? Think error, and factual dysfunction. One, we do not make law according to "the majority decides" in this country. It's by representatives, who hopefully study the issues more carefully before voting. The answer in this analogy you use then, if the LAW said to teach that homosexuality if immoral, then it would be done. It would be fought, and in our kind of government it would be defeated. As for spanking, if laws are passed and you wish to fight them, or fight to keep them from being passed, you are most welcome to try. That is what our system is about. We do not, as is historically noted, always come to the right moral decisions immediately...but in time, we seem to. Slavery and the enfranchisement of women come to mind. Anti spanking laws will pass. Case law is coming closer and closer to that. And case law tends to reflect changes or not, in public consciousness. That's one of the reasons, but not the only one, we have a tri-part system of governance. > > though I welcome it, bring up my posting > > history, but it was only this year (and I've posted here for some time) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One small thing that you missed about my point was that it really won't BE a > change if forced by law. I'm not sure you made that clear enough for me to see. I believe I did answer this though, in my posted reply. > If there is not heart change and understanding > change, then it is just substitution from one punishment to another. I disagree. While we are certainly a long way from equal rights for women, and a longer way from full enfranchisement of blacks we are nowhere near where we were prior to the laws concerning each. "Heart change" will be the next challenged, just as equal rights are in other areas. And I agree. No law can be guaranteed to change someone's heart, but it's a start. We are influenced by law. Child abuse was once the most under reported crime in the U. S. the first year it was seriously questioned only 300 cases were reported nationwide. Please don't try and convince me that number represented the actual numbers of child abuse incidences nationwide. Even with millions of abuse and neglect instances being reported now, it's STILL a massively unreported crime. And in the end, Stephanie, for me it's not so much if people agree to conform, but that children are hit less. A moral issue. I can no more support children being hit than I would accept a return to the time wives could be legally beaten. I don't doubt there were similar arguments against outlawing it as I'm hearing now from you. "Men's hearts just weren't in it." I know. They still do it. I know that people will still hurt their children. But there will be considerably less of it. And trust me, I for one will NOT allow the authorities to get away with what they have until recent years, gotten away with on battered spouses....ignoring, denying, minimizing. No, this law will be strongly enforced. Women learned this lesson the hard way. Do NOT wait for people to have a "heart change." Blacks learned it to. I grew up with black people around me expressing their belief in the goodness of people and that white people would see that blacks deserved fair treatment. > >> For wrong or right, parents are > >> ultimately responsible for their children. > > > > That is not factual. > > It should be. Would that all parents took it that seriously. That's why I said it is not factual. Drugs, alcohol, mental incapacities. All contribute on a scale far greater than the general public can grasp. States are reporting, for instance, the over 50% of their cases are just METH related, and other substance abuse makes up the rest almost without exception. I sat next to a juvenile system administrator yesterday in committee. She was asked how many of their cases are substance abuse related. She answered without hesitation, "100%." Not a single case was NOT related to substance abuse. That's yet another reason to make hitting children illegal. > > In fact, the state accepts varioius > > responsibilities for us all, and moreso for those who cannot take care [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope. I am merely saying that the line, whereever it lies, is nebulous. Ah, and so do I. In fact a great many laws are. In fact even the one that determines when a spanking is no longer legal and abuse is very nebulous. One does not know for certain until one has crossed over it and is in court and hears the decision. > And > the idea that Big Brother knows better than parents is a dangerous one. If that were so there would be no government involvement at all. Other than just taking the children away at birth. No, we have courts, and we have legislatures precisely because Big Brother isn't allowed to decide without input from the people. WE, are big brother, you and I and everyone else. > Who > is the authority with the wisdom to arbitrate these things. We, the public. Just as in other matters, like how clean restaurants have to keep your food, we assign authority through laws, passed by legislators, who were placed by us. We even have the backup system to judge, when a case comes up, if the food handler was truly out of compliance, or not quite to the line yet. > I tread > cautiously about calling spanking abuse. As a parent, as a mental health worker with the young, after a yearlong stint as a student worker with CPS, I no longer have any doubt that it's abuse. Some of it is hidden. Humans are very adaptable..but the risk is still high. > I was spanked as a kid, by my Dad. > And I tell you it was a whole lot less damaging, coming as it did with that > very believable lecture that it would hurt him more than it would hurt me > because he was a big fat softy, than my Mom's ugly words. Yes, words do hurt. That's why what was formerly just permission to beat slaves and women taken away has expanded into dening people the right to scream hurtful things at each other. If it comes to that, (and the statues are on the books already under child protection law) her ugly words would be against the law if proven to damage. > Luckily for me my > parents were acting in good faith and the overall upshot was that I hope my > failings are as mild as theirs. So was the spanking abuse? I would say not > from a strictly outcome point of view. For me, the problem cannot be solved > by the eradication of the practice of spanking. I hestitate to remind you, but your view can hardly be called "objective." Much of mine is not objective either, so in this we must agree to disagree. What I look for is proof. I accept some impirical evidence, even anecdotal evidence if it's logical and fits with my knowledge based on proofs....research results. My take over time is that, yes, there is damage, some of it subtle. Some not. And some completely unrecognized but that detract in ways the victim is unable to count or even recognize. It's very hard to fault one's parents. The old threat of the withdrawal of their love probably stays with us until we die...or they. > > Even the > > statement about ultimate responsibility says that even abusive parents > > would have a right to decision making. > > > >> But changing the law to > >> make spanking illegal would neither help reshape less helpful parenting > >> ideas nor protect children from the greater problem of other things that > >> the > >> parent would choose to substitute for spanking. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you deny it's effectiveness, why would you suggest this? I don't deny it's effectiveness. Nothing in what I said suggests that. In fact I KNOW it works. The question is is it moral? I can get short term compliance with force. It's relatively easy. I need the size and or authority, that's all. But is it moral? No, of course not. > That's vengence > pure and simple. No it isn't. It's what parents use on children. Children come to believe it is right...even when they have known it was wrong. They then are more easily controlled, short term, by threats of harm. I don't consider that moral and I do consider it socially very dangerous. People are easily lead when they are raised that way. > You cannot educate grown ups with vengence anymore than you > can kids. I was not using the term "punishment" in that way, but as it's used by spankers, as "discipline," that is teaching. I agree with you, but also know the force of punishment as being effective on those that are accustomed to being punished. It's very weak with those accustomed to doing right because it is right. > And by what right would those among us who beleive we are right > inflict pain on those who beleive they are right. I'll ask my lawmakers next time in the state capitol. > It is hubris to think we > have a lock on right. Then the government, and we who ARE the government in this country, are guilty as charged. > And doing wrong to make right is a moral fallacy that > simply does not work. Then you would be arguing for all punishment, all fines and penalties, including jailtime, to be removed from our statutes because it would be "doing wrong" and a "moral fallacy that does not work?" I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't believe and know (I'm a great one for proof you see) it "works." There was a time when public floggin and hangings, and burnings at the stake worked to. Times change. There will come a time when, as a great deal of control socially already does, nothing more than knowing that your neighbors and family disapprove of a behavior and you have been raised to agree with that, you will not do an unwanted behavior. Or you will, and your conscience will, in response to what you know to be right, overcome your desire to do it again. That happens to a lot of folks now. They break the law, they aren't caught, and they do not do it again. > > They > > tend, often because that IS where they came from in their life [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Read Madelyn Swift's Discipline for Life; Getting it Right with Children. > It's a good book. If I understand some of the blurbs, yes, it has much I'd agree with. I am totally against "rewards." What she refers to as "celebrations" are exactly what I was doing with my own children as far back as the early 70's. We agreed NOT to say "please" and "thankyou" as a way to manipulate people into doing what we wanted, and we removed the judgemental terms "good" as in "that's a good girl," from our vocabulary. We removed that kind of judgement from all their actions. Swift is putting into practice the priciples uncovered by and first offered by Tom Gordon (and a great many grandmas down through time) that "validation" not "judgement" is the key. In other words, not "That's beautiful picture, the best ever" (which sounds good) but "You put a lot of work into doing this. I'll bet you enjoyed it." Many parents that would go right over the head of. They wouldn't understand the power of validation in the second but only because they were hooked themselves as children by the first phrase. > In any event, paying or rewarding people will not change their hearts and > their understanding which is necessary to make punive people into positive > people. So I see it still as completely ineffective. Then you miss the point. Possibly the one I missed for so long. Those who are available for a change of heart are NOT the problem, any more than they were in the days of slavery. What they are though, most often, is standing by. They are not committed one way or the other until they see support for a more humane condition. A law against spanking would be just that. Millions would claim they already knew it was wrong, and what relief to have a law support them now. Millions, I assume, are still racist bigots, and millions are misogynists. I'm not going back to slavery and disenfranchisement of women however, just because we haven't changed their hearts. In fact the law is need precisely because of them. Just as it will be needed for those that continue, after the passage of the no-spank law, that insist they have a right to assault their child. In fact, many a CPS client comes from that same place, Stephanie, that they had a right to put those marks on their children, and who did the state think it was to interfere. "After all, my parents beat me and I only switched my children." > > And of course, though I didn't say, there is always Number Three: > > education. > > That is where the generations come in, I am afraid. ? > > A great many folks, when offered the stick, the carrot, and a way out, > > education, will be prone to take that way. Nothing is 100% of course, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Amen and alleluhiah to that. They certainly come uncivilized and for that > they need us. But too many people give children too little credit IMO. As a > result they set the bar too low and kids suffer the consequences. Mmm...depends on what you mean. I still see a great deal of ignorant babbling about how much a 2 year old "understands," and that used as an excuse to punish. > > and believe > > me, it prevails in child abuse cases where the parent went too far with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Absolutely. And whether we want it or not, real education, the assimilation, > acceptance and ownership of information can happen on no one's time table > but the recipient. But the more it is out there the better IMO. I don't know. My time table tended to be about riding my horse over the Sierra's, fishing, hunting, napping under an oak tree, puttering around with my hobbies...yet my parents seem to think that I was learning when they put me on their time table for my education. I still think I learned a lot on my own, but there would have been great gaps had they not sent me to school. Just as I believe that the courts should do, just like driving school for people with too many traffic tickets, with parents that don't get it. > > Specifically > > early childhood development information so people know and understand [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I know around where I live there is no industry for foster kids. But I do > know that their foster experience is often way worse than their home > experience. My Mom, a lawyer who does a lot of pro bono gardian ad litem > work, told me the story of a mother whose children were removed from the > home -- because it was DIRTY. And we are not talking mouse droppings or > anything. Single Mom chose to spend her evenings reading to her kids before > collapsing into bed. I'm not going to suggest your mom lied, but she may not have had the whole story. We see these kinds of stories often, and they turn out to have a whole lot more going on than just the "mouse droppings." The entire casefile is closed...unless it was her case she can't be sure of what was in it...and lots of times various parties to the abuse and neglect will make indignant grunts they lost their kids because of a "messy house." Forgetting that little part about the sex offender boyfriend babysitting, gascans sitting next to wood stoves, and that little lab in the bathroom. I'm perfectly serious about that. What you hear in court from the defendent is absolutely amazing after you look at the police reports, photos, and forensic reports from autopsy. > My Mom is a kick a.s lawyer and the kids wound up back with Mom. But there > is no way you can convince me that the system of removing kids from the home > is not utterly f.cked up, and needs some major fixing. Of course not, but it's not an industry. In fact it is chronically short funded. Attempted fixes have most always been bandaids. They lowered the standards for entry into the field, for instance, to save money, and tried to make up for the lack of training and experience by making casework fit a pattern or model. Some is needed, but certainly not to the scale forced by dwindling funding. > >> I fear government's over involvement in family life. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Well who knows. Give me 50 years and maybe I will change my tune. As more and more courts open up (there is a movement, oddly enough, from the Anti CPS people for more open family courts) and the public sees the truth of child abuse more and more, it's very possible they'll see what I saw. But in the end, it's not that I was against the law so much as for the people doing it themselves. My thinking may have been naive. 0:-> > > You see, when I was against the law, children were still being > > "assaulted" (had the law been in place). > Had the law been in place, parents would have hidden better or changed to > verbal abuse. The law would have fixed nothing. You are wrong. The law on other issues most certainly changed and "fixed things." No law is going to be perfect, and you cannot expect it to be and use it's lack of perfection as an argument against it. Think about present laws and if they have "fixed" the problem. Bank robbery? Want to do away with the law? Racism as represented by slavery? Think we should remove those protections against slavery because there is still racism? Fraud? Rape? Assault? > >> > Basically for me it's wrong in two ways, morally wrong, and as a former > >> > mental health worker with adolescents, wrong for the development of > >> > children. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Point? You did not answer the question. What's the remedy. As a woman, I can > take care of myself. No you cannot. If the laws that protect you are removed you will not. In fact if you defended yourself against a sound disciplinary beating before the law changed and you injured your husband YOU would got to jail for assault. And I did answer the question. Very clearly indeed. You asked, "What is the remedy if it were to become illegal?" to my comment on the moral, mental health, and child development issues being wrong with the use of corporal punishment. I have all through my prior post pointed out the remedies. And I have again here. Education. Make it a moral as well as illegal offense, which is what happens when you pass a law. It is immoral to rape someone. It did not use to be for a husband to rape his wife. It is now illegal, and no one argues the morality of it when they formerly did. The argument was, "she's his wife, for sh.t sakes." It seems impossible now, but you do know that there are some that disagree with this still? That would argue that it's moral to force one's wife to have sex. > >> And how much good would it > >> do to make it illegal without replacing it with real understanding of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is not a useful analogy. Children need grown ups to take care of them. > Grown up black people do not. That is not where the argument was, Stephanie. And your argument does not go to the issue under consideration. Morality in each case does not hinge on if one needs care or not, but if one deserves to be hit. How does needing to be taken care of support a moral argument for spanking? > > The alternative to denying women the rights men have is .... ? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Because they have no real knowledge of real discipline. I venture many a Southern gentleman knew little to nothing of real work in the fields either. They could ride a horse, learn to hold their liquor -- sometimes, shoot, and gamble and tip a black female slave now and then. They sure as hell didn't know how to hitch up a mule and drive it all day to cultivate cotton. They damn well learned in a hurry or starved. > Doing nothing is > also not a useful alternative in the raising of children. Why is it those supporting the right to spank presume those that do not advocate doing nothing? Or expect there to be "nothing" offered for parenting improvement? You can be sure that models of law will be set up that do in fact include education. > > Why not go wholehog and make it illegal to do that? > > Well that would certainly make for an interesting set of court proceedings. > I thought *I* was a radical liberal! Not so's I'd notice. There are those that do not take me for anything but, yet here I am advocating for parental responsibility. People constantly get confused and think that harsh discipline is the venue of the conservative, and gentleness is that of the liberal. Hell, I've known a hell of a lot more killer liberals than conservatives. > > In fact, I've a surprize for you. Most states do in fact have child > > protection laws that list "shaming and belittling" under or as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So refute it. I never read too deep in to the true spanking zealots. I've refuted it, other posters here have done so. Please read the archives. Even as recently as earlier today I again posted reference to Tom Gordon's work, and research his organization offered that showed positive outcomes from non-punitive parenting methods. And there's nothing there that suggests punishment or reward as you use it above. > > Why do you assume that non-spankers are automatically supporters of > > unrelated priveledge removal and crazy reward systems? > > > Because non-punitve discipline is HARDER given that it has not been part of > our societal consciousness for the last 100 years. Support or no support, > people will do what's easily at hand. It's much easier to oversee slaves than to hoe. Nevertheless people learn. And I've a real surprize for anyone willing to commit to it. Once learned it's not only easier in time and trouble, but the reward are such one can never go back. And I disgree on our awareness of non-punative discipline. In fact that's what "grandparents" represented, a more gentle approach, much of the time. They had time and distance from child rearing and could see where they'd gone wrong, and offered a place where children were listened to, and "spoiled." > > Could it be possible that people that care about ending child assault > > (spanking) also would like to end and replace OTHER forms of abusive > > child rearing? > > > Certainly. That's why I don't think an anti-spank law is effective. Two things will happen. Just like Sweden alternatives will be offered. Both voluntary to the public, and by court order to the convicted. And they have shown it works. In fact, PET was, if my data is correct, one of the most taught of programs right after the spanking ban was in place there. > > Have you not heard of "logical and natural consequences?" Or positive > > behavior management? > > I have. But I don't think I would be terribly impacted by an anti-spank law. I doubt that there's a single mind in family jurisprudence that is not fully aware of that, and will make it known in the legislature, as will child protection people, when the work groups are formed to created the language of the proposed bills that will pass into law. It will include education. You are, it appears, asking for perfection before the fact. > > What a lot of folks find, that have children and determine against, or > > change from, spanking is that relationship is the most powerful force > > between parent and child. And they look for ways to make that work for > > the child. And it works. > > No sh.t. Me choir, you preacher. Completely beside my point. The one that says the law will not likely take into account that people will need alternatives? I say it will. I'll be one of the speakers on the subject. Loud and clear. I have before, and wil be again. > > Tom Gordon's work was about that very thing. Read PET yet? Been around > > for years, and still it is the best and simplest of explanations for > > parenting in this supportive way. As you see, I answered your prior questions. > >> Illegalization is not a remedy IMO. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> esteem, > >> problem solving skills and real confidence will turn the tide IMO. This > >> will > >> only change for the better one family at a time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Good for them. When they stop being part of the problem, maybe I will listen > to them. Hyperbole and propaganda. They are staggering along as they have for years, barely able to contain the immense issues they face in child abuse and neglect. And do you demand this of your legislators? Your druggist? Your doctor? > Now I don't discredit the individuals and what they are trying to > do. But the framework in which they work sets them up to fail and it has to > be changed. Then support the public being educated to the reality of child abuse and neglect. It is horribly under reported, and the scope and type of abuse being barely noted. The media is at fault here as much as anyone. A paper thinks itself progressive if it does one special every couple of years. Because the public doesn't know the day to day extent of the problem they think that once a year piece focused on just the rare anomoly...the stumbling single parent like your mother helped. That's NOT what the reality is. > > And even simple logic would tell you that those that were spanked, just > > as those raised on a political party, tend to carry it into adulthood. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Well for the mometn I will not be voting with you on this one. That's okay. Others will. As you live and learn you'll see, I do believe, that people don't live up to their morals and ethics, even when they have them, without agreement from "the pack." All we have to do is convince them the pack has moved to "no assaulting children in the name of discipline," and it's all over. The reason for my confidence isn't like that of the prospank phonies. They are trying to live in the past and claim it's coming back...the conservative reactionary...the bane of we moderates. My confidence comes from watching trends....part of being old is having had that opportunity. And the trends are clear. More and more nations are outlawing spanking, CP, and more and more states here are outlawing school paddling, and judges are finding more against "spanking" and labeling it what I do, abuse: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13508987.htm I see more of these as time passes. They don't settle all that much, but they certainly show that it IS an issue, and it IS contentious, and the courts are finding in favor of the child more and more. Best, Kane Kane > >You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, now would you, Spanker? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Goodbye. I think you got the "essence" of Kane0's style. Doan <snipped the message as that's not what I am responding to> > www.drdino.com JERRY You reference that fraud Kent Hovind in your sig? You just lost any respect that I might have been willing to give. Hovind is a fraud whose degree is a worthless piece of paper from a diploma mill operated from a personal residence in Colorado. He continually uses false evidence (old creationist lies that have long been debunked) even after creationist organizations like Answers In Genesis have asked Christians not to use those arguments because they are too easily proven false. He's also had more than his share of trouble with the law. The guy is a fraud, bunko artist and doesn't deserve respect or hits on his website. > >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the question about what they would do, if the > things they mentioned don't work. I am not a liberal, in fact I'm a conservative of near moderate position. And I am NEVER stumped nor do I dodge. And no, that is NOT what I try to "turn the question into." And again, I ask, as I always have and echoing the poster YOU are trying to dodge the question of by YOU turning to "what they would do, if the things they mentioned don't work." Nice try, but no cigar. Non spanking parents of a little experience, and not much at that, have no end to their repertoire, and for the great majority of them it isn't even about punishment. The claim, for instance, that they yell instead, is based on erroneous nonsense on people that REFUSED to learn non-punitive methods after they were banned from spanking. > -- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." > - Acts 9:17 And who was spanking or spanked? > www.drdino.com Got something to sell? 0:-> >> >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >And I am NEVER stumped nor do I dodge. That's a load of crap, driven by ego. 1) No one is NEVER stumped. 2) You would not claim that someone "prefers to inflict pain when time outs, or withholding privileges works", unless you were a lying con man. a) You are intentionally accusing someone of desiring to inflict pain upon their children. b) You are assuming that YOU KNOW that they have been in a situation in which the options you mentioned WOULD HAVE worked and yet, they hit their child. 3) The poster did not say he did either of those things (2a, nor 2b), so that makes you a liar. >And no, that is NOT what I try to "turn the question into." See above. >And again, I ask, as I always have and echoing the poster YOU are >trying to dodge the question of by YOU turning to "what they would do, >if the things they mentioned don't work." Again, you ask? That question is not in the message I responded to. >Non spanking parents of a little experience, and not much at that, have >no end to their repertoire, and for the great majority of them it isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >nonsense on people that REFUSED to learn non-punitive methods after >they were banned from spanking. And here you set up your straw man, where you pretend that people have "little experience", because they don't do exactly what you think is right. You need to realize that you are not a parenting expert. If you were, you would not be making the argument that assumes that talking to children always works. It doesn't. Children test parents. You can pass, or you can fail. Show them that physical discipline is never an option and you have shown them that they if they decide to push it that far, they will win. What about a child who, when you "take away" all of his stuff and tell him he must stay in his room and who also decides to tell you to go "F" yourself and who keeps walking out of his room and going outside? Then what? After all, you must let him go outside and come back whenever he pleases, because, well, you can't put your hands on him right? So you go ahead and make a child that you will raise to take up my tax dollars in prison expenses. My child on the other hand, was hit twice, 9 years ago and hard enough to shock him, but not hurt him for more than a minute and he has never since again crossed that line that HE BROUGHT IT TO. But hey, my child growing up to be respectful., doesn't matter, because your tax burden wasn't hit and after all, you must be right. <chuckle> Now you go ahead and keep classifying me as a parent who beats his child, because well, after all, the truth doesn't suit you. But don't worry, I won't say you're misrepresenting what I said, because after all, as you said, you don't ever dodge a point. And you wouldn't intentionally twist what I said, to make yourself appear to be right. So, oh great god of parenting, why don't you tell us all what to do, when that child walks out the door and doesn't give a damn about you "taking away" anything, because he'll use it anyway, because he knows that you won't ever raise a hand to him? What is your magic solution? Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 Evolution = Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through... Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced... Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but could through... Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an.. Unknown atmospheric composition...in an... Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an... Unknown time and place. Dr. Henry Morris > >> >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > >> > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > who also decides to tell you to go "F" yourself and who > keeps walking out of his room and going outside? Hey, buddy, if your kid is behaving that way to you, you messed up in raising him a loooong time ago. I've been teaching public school for several years now, teaching hundreds of high school age children, and I've NEVER had a kid tell me to "F" myself. These aren't even my own kids. What am I doing right that parents who slap their children are doing wrong? 1) I am more patient than those sorts of parents. 2) I communicate more effectively than those sorts of parents. 3) I am a more effective leader and better roll model than those sorts of parents. Dave >> >> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > trying to dodge the question of by YOU turning to "what they would do, > if the things they mentioned don't work." I think we just have a different definition of what it means to "work." > Nice try, but no cigar. > > Non spanking parents of a little experience, and not much at that, have > no end to their repertoire, and for the great majority of them it isn't > even about punishment. How about never about punishment. Maybe my understanding of the word "punishment" is inaccurate. So I apologize and explain. Punishment is about making the child pay. It is about my anger at their behavior. It is about my desire to control their behavior. A real consequence is allowing the child to feel the results *of the behavior*. A real consequence recognizes the child's right to choose. And gives a framework for their understanding of what happens when they choose X. It can be allowed to occur or delivered by me in a dispassionate way, because though it is my responsibility to allow or implement these consequences, the actual behavior and their consequences belong to the child. For example, if a child must ride his tricycle on the sidewalk, but insists on swerving into the street, and I say "You must ride on the sidewalk. You may choose to ride on the sidewalk and continue to ride until snack time, or you may choose to go into the street and stop riding until tomorrow." If he tests me, and rides into the street, and we put away his tricycle, have I punished him? According to my language, no. I cannot allow him to do the dangerous thing of riding into the street. He has had to opportunity to choose. If I say "Don't ride in the street." And when he tests me, and I take away his tricycle, have I punished him? Well it probably was not the best way to get the message across, but if he is a bright kid, he'll eventually get the picture. If I say "Don't ride in the street." And when he tests me, I spank him or say No cookies after lunch. Have I punished him? You betcha. And next time, he will say to himself Do I want to ride in the street? Yeah, I had a cookie after breakfast. But in paragraph 1, he will say to himself Do I want to ride my tricycle? And if the answer is yes, then he will stay out of the street. The problem with punishment is that eventually the crime will be worth the punishment. And/or the emphasis is placed on the getting caught or Who's going to make me? > The claim, for instance, that they yell instead, is based on erroneous > nonsense on people that REFUSED to learn non-punitive methods after > they were banned from spanking. I don't think it is fair tho accuse anyone of refusing to learn. If one comes to the table thinking they have an understanding of what it means, they will not know that that understanding is inaccurate and will not seek out more information. Punitive methods have been used for so long in this country (USA that is), that it is a fairly well understood by and large. I think it would be easy to think that non-punitive methods are a one-to-one replacement of punitive ones. >> -- >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 0:-> > How about never about punishment. Maybe my understanding of the word > "punishment" is inaccurate. So I apologize and explain. Punishment is about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or implement these consequences, the actual behavior and their consequences > belong to the child. Your definition of punishment is perfect. > For example, if a child must ride his tricycle on the sidewalk, but insists > on swerving into the street, and I say "You must ride on the sidewalk. You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dangerous thing of riding into the street. He has had to opportunity to > choose. As long as the child understands the connection between the behavior and the consequence, and as long as the consequence is logically connected to the behavior, this is not punishment. This is logical consequences. > If I say "Don't ride in the street." And when he tests me, and I take away > his tricycle, have I punished him? Well it probably was not the best way to > get the message across, but if he is a bright kid, he'll eventually get the > picture. It seems like a logical response. It's only punishment if he doesn't understand the connection. Ride bikes safely or don't ride bikes. Of course, he also needs that continually explained to him. > If I say "Don't ride in the street." And when he tests me, I spank him or > say No cookies after lunch. Have I punished him? You betcha. And next time, > he will say to himself Do I want to ride in the street? Yeah, I had a > cookie after breakfast. But in paragraph 1, he will say to himself Do I want > to ride my tricycle? And if the answer is yes, then he will stay out of the > street. You have an excellent grasp of the difference between discipline/guidance and punishment. > The problem with punishment is that eventually the crime will be worth the > punishment. And/or the emphasis is placed on the getting caught or Who's > going to make me? That is exactly the problem with punishment. "Will I get caught and who's gonna make me?" When my youngest girl was about seven years, we decided to work on her habit of leaving lights on that are not necessary. (Oops, I'm also guilty -- wonder where she learned this?!?!) One day I was tired, my patience was gone, and she had left all the lights on. I gave her a very intellectual description of how electricity cost money, and I would keep her allowance whenever the lights were left on. She didn't understand the explanation and viewed this as punishment, as I heard her telling her friends. That was the end of what was clearly a punishment to her. We still leave lights on, but we check each other. Rather than blame and anger, we chose humor and helping each other. What a better parenting dynamic than hitting, hurting, fighting, and punishing. LaVonne > > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > well as, if not better than, corporal punishment, why would you prefer > to inflict pain? Because you shoukd have been spanked Grinder and this shows in your online antics. SignatureCERM-Church Education Resource Ministries http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/ John 14:6 Jesus answered, ³I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. AIM-Crucifyself03 >>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because you shoukd have been spanked Grinder and this shows in your > online antics. You would prefer to inflict pain on your children because you mistakenly think that I was not spanked as a child? I should have expected no more reasonable of a response from you. I'll leave the question of what *your* online antics show to the forum. >> Because you shoukd have been spanked Grinder and this shows in your >> online antics. > >You would prefer to inflict pain on your children because you mistakenly >think that I was not spanked as a child? I should have expected no more >reasonable of a response from you. You twist his words and that means that he prefers to inflict pain on his children? You truly are a total dumb a.s! As I said, I doubt that you are a parent. If you are, I feel bad for people that have to deal with your child! Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22). Evolution says lots of things lived and died before Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule out what the Bible says. One or the other is right, but they can't both be right. >>>Because you shoukd have been spanked Grinder and this shows in your >>>online antics. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You twist his words and that means that he prefers > to inflict pain on his children? It's his, sketchily stated, position that he would prefer to spank, which inflicts pain, upon his children than use other forms of discipline, which do not inflict pain, because I'm a good example of how "sparing the rod" can "spoil the child." What am I twisting? Does John not prefer spanking to other forms of discipline? Does spanking not inflict pain? What? Where's the twist? > You truly are a total dumb a.s! You're really broadening your form, Pastor Dave. Times were when you just would have called me a liar. > As I said, I doubt that you are a parent. Where did you say that? You asked if I was a parent, but I don't see where you've expressed doubt. Care to offer a link? Perhaps you're confusing what you're thinking with what you're writing. That would certainly explain why your remarks seem so non-sequitur. > If you are, I feel bad for people that have to > deal with your child! So now I'm a bad parent if I don't smack my kids? > >>>Because you shoukd have been spanked Grinder and this shows in your > >>>online antics. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You're really broadening your form, Pastor Dave. Times were when you > just would have called me a liar. JERRY This twit is Dave Raymond? That explains a lot. And please, do not judge Christianity by Bible John. LaVonne >>>> 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'll leave the question of what *your* online antics show to the forum. > And please, do not judge Christianity by Bible John. I'll meet you half-way. I promise not to judge *Christians* (even the ones that Bible Johns claims as Christians) by Bible John's actions. Christianity is another matter. Like any other philosophy that seperates people into the blessed and the heathen, it contributes a share to the type of arrogant twittery that Bible John so often engages in. Do non punative parenting method work? Do they ever.......... http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/041025/d041025b.htm " ... Change in parenting environment predicts change in child's behaviour The study found that the tendency toward aggressive behaviour observed in some children did not necessarily persist. When parenting styles that had been punitive when children were two to three years old became less punitive six years later, children's aggressive behaviour scores also tended to be lower, regardless of how aggressively they had behaved while very young. In other words, children whose parenting environment changed from punitive at age two to three to non-punitive at age eight to nine scored just as low in aggressive behaviour as those whose parenting environment was not punitive at either of those ages. Likewise, children whose parenting environment changed from non-punitive to punitive had aggressive behaviour scores that were just as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. ... " Please define "punitive". I DARE YOU, KANE0! ;-) Doan > Do non punative parenting method work? Do they ever.......... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. > ... " "Punitive parenting style: Punitive parenting was measured by asking parents how often they used physical punishment, or yelled and shouted at the child and, on the other hand, how often they calmly discussed the problem or described more acceptable behaviour to the child. Responses were tallied to create a punitive parenting practices score for the child's home. For the purposes of this study, a parenting style was considered to be punitive if the score was at or above the score nearest to the 90th percentile." In other words, 90 percent of parents in this study are NON-PUNITIVE. Now the question for that anti-spanking zealotS is how many spanking parents in that 90 percent are NON-PUNITIVE? ;-) Doan > Please define "punitive". I DARE YOU, KANE0! ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. > > ... " One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who beat kids to a pulp or parents given to wildly flailing at the slightest provocation. Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because the panoply of laws begin to conflict with one another. Complexity is the Achilles heel of reform. Until no-spanks can find some effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, their agenda will remain a fringe movement perpetuated by kooks, goofs, and hustlers. It will remain divorced from mainstream parenting and even shunned by parents because of the heavy-handed tactics of verbally abusive and pushy no-spanks. > "Punitive parenting style: Punitive parenting was measured by asking > parents how often they used physical punishment, or yelled and shouted at [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. > > > ... " > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who > beat kids to a pulp or parents given to wildly flailing at the > slightest provocation. They started with "spanking." > Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of > discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. Yes, you noticed. We knew you would, eventually. Now if we can just get those anti wife-beating laws passed. > When those laws prove inadequate, I've complained forever it seems that bank robbing hasn't stopped despite the laws against it. What shall we do, worry worry worry, what shall we do? 0:-> > the solution is always to pass more > laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because > the panoply of laws begin to conflict with one another. I wonder if men would beat their wives more, less, or the same if there were not laws. > Complexity is the Achilles heel of reform. Nope, just the challenge of the lawmakers and those that help them draft the bills for consideration. I've been one of those. Might be again, who knows. > Until no-spanks can find > some effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, their agenda > will remain a fringe movement perpetuated by kooks, goofs, and > hustlers. If you carefully read the archives of this ng you see very quickly who those really were. People that defended spanking, by suspending kids up in church naked, and allowing the parishoners to beat them with objects. One that thought beatings that left him bloody were deserved and good for him. You'll notice all we anti-spanking kooks, goofs, and hustlers want is simply to have children protected from being hit. When you can prove spanking isn't done by hitting, and CP isn't done with pain, we'll be happy to reexamine your and our own arguments. You up for it? > It will remain divorced from mainstream parenting and even > shunned by parents because of the heavy-handed tactics of verbally > abusive and pushy no-spanks. You need to do some research in the ng again, child. In fact, "pushy no-spanks" would be verbally abusive, as would be "kooks, goofs, and hustlers." It's amusing to watch you trying to vent your frustration over what is actually happening...millions of people chosing not to hit their children. And those same millions beginning to speak out...something they couldn't do before because of the social pressure by you strange people that must spank. It's over, observer. Has been for some time. I'm here just doing wrap up on nutsos like you and monkeyboy. Kane 0:-> > > "Punitive parenting style: Punitive parenting was measured by asking > > parents how often they used physical punishment, or yelled and shouted at [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > > as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. > > > > ... " > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who > beat kids to a pulp or parents given to wildly flailing at the > slightest provocation. It is applied uniformly in the shelter I worked in. No spanking or slapping. It works. > Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of > discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. > When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more > laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because > the panoply of laws begin to conflict with one another. Those who oppose wife beating pretty muchg sums it up. > Complexity is the Achilles heel of reform. Until no-spanks can find > some effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, their agenda > will remain a fringe movement perpetuated by kooks, goofs, and > hustlers. It will remain divorced from mainstream parenting and even > shunned by parents because of the heavy-handed tactics of verbally > abusive and pushy no-spanks. The alternative is and has been the time out. It works. It works on kids that have come from an environment where being spanked was the norm and frequently the only way of getting attention. It works on little kids and big kids. I doubt spanking means much to most kids, it certainly didn't mean anything to me. Punishment was being sent to my room. When I was really bad punishment was being sent to my room and told I could not read. But your comment about people who oppose wife beating pretty much sums you up. > > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is applied uniformly in the shelter I worked in. > No spanking or slapping. It works. We shall presume you mean alternatives rather than the methods of psychotic pastors. > > Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of > > discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Those who oppose wife beating pretty muchg sums it up. Such a shame that. Imagine not being able to, without fear of the law, beat one's wife to a bloody pulp. I understand we can't rape them any more either. What IS the world coming to? 0;-> > > Complexity is the Achilles heel of reform. Until no-spanks can find > > some effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, their agenda [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It works on little kids and big kids. I'll bet that's what you meant at the top of the post. I learned and taught (I may have been the orginator of the new term -- don't know if anything thought of it before me) the "Time-In." And were did I do this? Why in a treatment center for adolescent boys, of all places. Then taught it to alot of relatives, and a few others, that were taking abused and neglected children into their homes. Something about going to an out of control child and touching him and offering to be with him while he pulls himself together in safety. Yepsiryee, just beats the hell out of that old...well, beating stuff. One of the most difficult situations I ever saw was a grandmother with a badly abused and highly reactive child, a boy, that was super hard to deal with. Up to and including spitting on her, calling her fithly names, and hitting her. About 9 or so. She was at her wits end. I asked her this simple question: Do you love him enough to try anything I suggest, sans harming him? She thought long and hard (I liked that) answered a firm "yes." I told her what to do and she said "Nooooo....really?" "Yup," replied. I saw her about a week later. I thought she'd hug my neck clear through. And she was crying. I asked why. She told me the boy, the first time she followed through stopped, teared up, and said he was sorry and they'd been on a love feast ever since with him trying his darndest to please her. All it was was this: The next time he acts out, grab him and hug him and love him and hold him and rock him like a baby, and don't stop until he does. But it must be genuine love and tenderness, not pain and hurt to punish, but love to heal. Nothin' to it. Really. Just most folks are scared to do it. > I doubt spanking means much to most kids, it certainly didn't mean anything > to me. To abused children it's part of their war zone, and they are practiced warriors in short order. Which of the following won't a warrior do in the field: lie, cheat, steal, kill, manipulate, gorge , hide food, destroy, lie, act out, lie...did I mention lie? And more, of course. And that's all the kid is doing, and very much what the "spanked" child does. They deceive the spanker to the point they end up believing their own deception...something that all practiced liars must do to be more believable. > Punishment was being sent to my room. > When I was really bad punishment was being sent to my room and told I could > not read. > > But your comment about people who oppose wife beating pretty much sums you > up. The idea that punishment is a necessary part of child rearing always makes me laugh. I could keep a kid so busy, even minute to minute, without hardly turning a hair, that they had little chance to "mis-behave." In fact in a couple of weeks all I had to do, when a child was showing signs (you know the ones, given where you worked -- and of course parents learn them quickly if they are paying attention and care) those little warning signs. One can wait, and beat the kid. One can immediately pounce and scare the kid. Or one do any number of curious things, like asking, "Hey, Billy, what's goin' on in your head?" And listen, listen, listen. Billy could be "controlled" (well to the stupid ignorant observer that's what it looked like) with on finger on his shoulder. And all it was was a "Time-In" and the various Billies in my life learned quickly they were safe and come to me and work out whatever it was. Sometimes in just peaceful silence with my hand or even finger just resting on their shoulder. That's what parents are supposed to do. Provide a safe place to learn. Now of course Michael, this isn't for you at all, and you know that. You probably already know this and more. Much more. Now here's my bitch with you. And you better explain. What did we do to the Opinions and Hystercial Monkeyboys, that makes them so socially dangerous as this? R R R R R R RR Here's a thought. I noticed over the years (I'm very old) an odd thing. Children that grew up to be like these had spanking parents whom they never escaped, and children that grew up with spanking parents that had ONE good solid escape from and weren't spanked again, like being adopted by nonspanking parents, are NOT like this. Just as you know the children that came to the center where you worked vastly increased the odds of them not growing up to be criminals, druggies, or nuts. Isn't it nice we have this safe place for the others? Me, I'm still looking for a violent criminal that was never spanked. According to our local experts here, not spanking children increases the odds they'll be anti social. I wonder if that's what makes wives antisocial. 0:-> I like this Kane guy reminds me of citisin Cain of the Kung Fu shows knowledgable, humble and helpful. >>> One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and >>> then try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We shall presume you mean alternatives rather than the methods of > psychotic pastors. A "Time out" is what was referred to and snipped by somebody. > All it was was this: The next time he acts out, grab him and hug him > and love him and hold him and rock him like a baby, and don't stop > until he does. But it must be genuine love and tenderness, not pain > and hurt to punish, but love to heal. > > Nothin' to it. Really. Just most folks are scared to do it. I was playing with a little girl in the shelter one afternoon and she kept hitting me, in a playful manner but I didn't like it. I asked her to stop and then asked if she knew what I did to kids that hit me. She stopped dead and I said "I give them hugs." A few days later while playing she started hitting me again. I asked her to stop and finally said if you hit me one more time I'm going back upstairs (to work on the phones.) She hit me again and I started up the stairs. About half way up she asked if I had forgotten what I did to kids that hit me... She wanted a hug and was afraid to ask. I still tear up at that memory. > >>> One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and > >>> then try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I still tear up at that memory. Gosh, aren't you afraid, like Pavlov's dogs, if you hug her it will just reinforce her hitting more? 0;-> That IS the sticking point for so many spankers. The reason I refer to them as compulsives. They get stuck in an idea, don't bother to explore further and learn, and there they sit until they die. They think they have a "fact," and that it's "logical," and nothing you can show them after their fact that in fact changes their fact will in fact change their 'fact.' Amazing, isn't it? In this case, with children being hurt. That lady I told you about. She was a real doubter, and in fact was hostile toward me even suggesting that she hug for the boy's bad behavior. She wanted some clever, manipulative, and punishment founded 'trick,' to control him. I thought for sure she'd go home and not try...but then I undestimated the power of her love, and his, for that matter. The principle is so simple and so out of reach for the compulsives. Children are asking to be taught, almost every moment of their lives. There is no such thing as a "miss" behavior. It all means something, and if we are too stupid, or to delusional and can't grasp that, then sure enough, the cycle of petty cowardly violence toward children goes on.... I'm not even, knowing the tremendous capacity of humans to tolerate, especially as children, worked up all that much about the pain....at least not in comparison to what is lost by using spanking instead of teaching. The potential whiped away. And the potential saved when someone puts a stop to it before the child is grown. I've had Thomas Edison used here to try and argue that he was severly beaten by his teachers and look how he turned out. Those that try that one get referred to the truth....his mother put a stop to that...took him OUT of school and he spent his time at home learning. She did not use CP. And his love for her was so great it inspired him to create what became the design for operating room lights. Mirrored reflection. There's not telling, besides tears, what can be produced by people that are not spanked as children. Now if only lil 'o' really understood what he advocates, and the screaching hystrical monkey. Best wishes. Hope your year and all those to come are prosperous and satisfying, Kane > > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It works on little kids and big kids. Not according to the studies I seen. For example, in a study done by anti-spanking researcher like Straus, they looked at alternatives like: 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges 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. They found the correlation to anti-sociable behavior of these all these alternatives together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of the other variables." Doan > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Doan ------------------------ You distort everything you touch. You're a f.cking liar. Steve > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You're a f.cking liar. > Steve And you put sh.t into your mouth. Eat sh.t and die, psycho! Doan > > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doan ---------------- The only sh.t here is in your head. You're a f.cking insane liar. Steve > > > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > > > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The only sh.t here is in your head. You're a f.cking insane liar. > Steve sh.t still oozing out of your mouth! Doan Moving right along to the more san approaches to this issue.... 0:-> http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/OPINION01/6010700 5/1052 Apparently there still is no official answer to the question, where IS that blasted LINE. Al the authorities could answer, after convicting a mother of child abuse for using a belt on her daughter was, "use your common sense." Talk about a cop-out. It's quite obvious the mother was sure she was using her "common sense," and she got busted for what she did to her daughter. Pretty soon things will move along to the obvious. Don't take the risk, the risks of many kinds that go with corporal punishment. A some magical point I do not know, there will be enough people of the opinion that this is good sense and needs to be made law, it will be. I don't think that time is all that far off, since one doesn't need a majority to create a law in this country. 0:-> Do you where that line is when you hit your kid, Kane0? ;-) How about the line between talking to your kid and verbal-abuse? Doan > Moving right along to the more san approaches to this issue.... 0:-> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 0:-> > Do you where that line is when you hit your kid, Kane0? ;-) Nope, that's why I never did it again. Just once. Very lightly really, through a heavy quilt, blanket and sheet. In my mind I obviously was across the line into abusiveness though. Actually mental abuse. Have you seen me claim I know where the line is by the way? It's you folks that claim you know and justify spanking and support of spanking thereby. So? Where is it? > How about the line between talking to your kid and verbal-abuse? Of course not. That's humanly impossible. But I can choose not to hit. I cannot chose not to speak, or communicate. I'm sure I've crossed that line as well, since I must speak to my child and I cannot know where the line is for them, or the circumstances, exactly. I suspect though, given my way of parenting they received the minimum possible damage possible in a parent child relationship. I can chose to not spank and do no harm whatsoever. I can chose not the speak, and that would be harmful. So between the two, I spoke. Now shall we look at walking with my child? Eating with my child? Singing with my child? Playing catch with my child? 0:-> > Doan Such a pitiful little wretch you are. All pretense and posturing. Is it possible, since you think spanking isn't harmful, that they did something else to you that made you lacking in morals and ethics, little monkeyboy? Kane > > Moving right along to the more san approaches to this issue.... 0:-> > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > 0:-> all i know is i got the belt and got smacked when i done things wrong or bad and that made me into a polite , considerate person , that understands that doing certain things is incorrect unlike 70% of teenagers and older are like today , ive witnessed uncontrolable , inpolite , awful , very abusive to their parents because they had no punnishment when they where younger > all i know is i got the belt and got smacked when i done things wrong or > bad and that made me into a polite , considerate person , ------------------ Not if you want to hit children you're not, you're lying. > ive witnessed uncontrolable , > inpolite , awful , very abusive to their parents because they had no > punnishment when they where younger ------------------------ Wrong, that only occurs where they ARE abused. Steve Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about rudeness asked: "Compared to 20 or 30 years ago, do you think people are more rude, less rude, or about the same?" 69% said "more rude." An equal number of respondents blamed "parents not teaching good manners to children." Not surprisingly, the number of violent youth gangs in America has also exploded in the past few years. Gangs such as MS-13 are particularly worrisome. Then there is rampant sexual experimentation that is so pervasive as to spillover into the public school classroom! > all i know is i got the belt and got smacked when i done things wrong or > bad and that made me into a polite , considerate person , that > understands that doing certain things is incorrect unlike 70% of > teenagers and older are like today , ive witnessed uncontrolable , > inpolite , awful , very abusive to their parents because they had no > punnishment when they where younger > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 69% said "more rude." An equal number of respondents blamed "parents > not teaching good manners to children." Having learned to and have experience in developing and administering survey questionaires, lil 'o' I can assure you that a pollster can get whatever results he or she wants by but the nature of the questions, and the cues and prompts in delivery, even to a handout written survey instrument. An Associated Press poll is very likely to attract those that will signon with something to say in agreement with question. Now when in ALL of history do you think adults, asked such a question, would have answered, contemporaneously, any different? In fact I'm stunned they could not pull in better numbers and MORE blame for parents and teachers "not teaching good manners..." What a cackle. I could, if I wished, create a polling instrument that would get about the exact opposite response. It's all in the wording and using human nature. > Not surprisingly, the number of violent youth gangs in America has also > exploded in the past few years. Gangs such as MS-13 are particularly > worrisome. Really? You have proof of this? Don't you find it odd then that the DOJ/FBI figures annually show a steady decrease in violent crime over the past 20 years to an all time low currently? You are about 20 years behind the times. We had a spike roughly 20 years ago. It went away and has been going away ever since. Most bullshit about violent youth came out of over reaction at the time, and a lot predictions by pundits about the likely "explosion" of youth violence expected...which didn't materialize -- partly because the demographic they were looking at...those following current youth would be mostly infants and toddlers....so much for the brilliant logic of the pundits and YOU, dimwit. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/myth/myth.html " ... Not only were juvenile arrest rates lower in the late 1990s than at any time in the previous 25 years, those juveniles who were arrested were being charged with less serious offenses: 38% were charged with felonies in 1979 and 33% were charged with a felony in 1998. The Task Force expressed concern about the growth in violent crime by youths from 1985 to the early 1990s. Otherwise, its surprising finding that 1990s youth did not represent a uniquely criminal generation (especially for felonies) appeared to have no impact on either crime policies or the media image of youth crime. ... " There was a deliberate attempt to sensationalize and demonize youth by picking only the highest and lowest years to compare, until more honest researchers used the "block of years" comparison method. As you can see above. Yer a pack of liars, lil 'o' and we aren't going to let you get away with it. The schools are safer than ever statistically. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statisti cs.html In fact even with an overall drop in violent crime in the us adults still outpace juveniles considerably. http://www.urban.org/publications/410402.html There has consistently been and attempt....successful....in citing "youth violence" when in fact the surveys have been of youth and young adult lumped together. YOUR kind of logica and honesty, lil 'o' who is chicken sh.t to debate me directly. 0;-> Is it at all possible that AP and other news connected sources might just be adhering to the editorial dictate for media, "if it bleeds it leads?" I do, since I've watched exactly that for about 50 years now. In fact, our youth currently are among some of the best behaved kids we've ever had, and the most bad rapped by twittering fools. Want to know who has been conning you, lying to you, and how they do it? See this source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1351 > Then there is rampant sexual experimentation that is so pervasive as to > spillover into the public school classroom! Where? You been having those erotic fantasies again? I don't know about you, lil 'o' but youth of my day found access to a car, something relatively new for youth, and very prevalent in my part of the country, the doorway to sexual experimentation and we certainly did our share. You get left out, didjah? R R R R R > > all i know is i got the belt and got smacked when i done things wrong or > > bad and that made me into a polite , considerate person , that > > understands that doing certain things is incorrect unlike 70% of > > teenagers and older are like today , ive witnessed uncontrolable , > > inpolite , awful , very abusive to their parents because they had no > > punnishment when they where younger And I've seen very little of this supposed impoliteness. I suspect that some uptight (that's a black word that has to do with the pinched a.s posture of a lot of whites...did you know that? r r r r ) adults look at kids in public, don't like the strange dress and "surly" looks they get back and lable it "impolite." I LOVE that the kids are independent just like most of us were back in the fifties and sixties and those surly looks crack me up. I can usually snap them right out of it with a word or two. It's just the same protective shell we wore as kids. Mine was a DA, lowslung tight jeans, and a tee shirt with a pack of Luckies rolled into the sleeve. No doubt I tried to look tough to my elders too. Doubtless they described me and my friends as "impolite" as well. Fact is we were all terrified of our elders and it had not a thing to do with spankings, but with the power they had and we didn't, and the chance they wouldn't turn it over to us when our time came. Just typical youth v adult stuff as old as time itself. You are a pathetic whining self indulgent brainless blatherer, lil 'o', but cute as the dickin's. Kane > > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > instrument. An Associated Press poll is very likely to attract those > that will signon with something to say in agreement with question. So much for all those anti-spanking research! Let's see, 90% of parents in Canada are NON-PUNITIVE! ;-) Doan > > instrument. An Associated Press poll is very likely to attract those > > that will signon with something to say in agreement with question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doan -------------------------------- Your error, actually that would call into question your insipid trolling garbage instead. Steve > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 69% said "more rude." An equal number of respondents blamed "parents > not teaching good manners to children." They said that 50 years ago when I was a kid and it's fairly easy to find 2800+ year old comments that lament the manners of the younger generation. "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC). > > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise > [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC). I have engaged kids in talk for decades now. I find them more polite and respectful than they were in my day, actually. We were a surly bunch in the fifties. "Happy Days" was funny because that's not how teens of my time behaved, outside of a few "squares." We wore DA's, Levi's that could stand up on their own, tee shirts with packs of Lucky Strikes rolled up in the sleeve, and stood around in little bunches just off the High School campus, with cigarettes hanging out of our mouths, being 'cool.' Some of us stole, got stinking drunk on cheap beer or wine, and knocked any girl we could get in the pants of. Mostly we were concerned about not getting caught and little else. Todays kids actually discuss issues and problems concerning them and they are the same ones we are concerned about for them. Compared to them we were ditzes when I was a kid. Looking at all indicators as to behavior they are in fact far less violent and much more responsible than the generation just 20 years behind them. Kane Have any looked in the "archives" and found the studies that LaVonne and Kane0 said they have posted "numerous times"? Could they be LYING? "Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true, just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However, it is important to note that their argument does point to the need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not just corporal punishment." Doan This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, in search of a few gems of truth. What parents really want is, if spanking is all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to work. Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be necessary. Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking, and almost everyone knows what they're taking about, no-spanks could suggest *whatever* with the same universal understanding. > Have any looked in the "archives" and found the studies that LaVonne > and Kane0 said they have posted "numerous times"? Could they be LYING? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doan > This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined > to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, in search > of a few gems of truth. Yes, that's more the purview of those that debate the questions or have professional interest. However I've run into a great many parents that felt their children were worth the trouble of a "wade through no-spank research....in search of a few gems of truth." Most didn't need that though. They were much too busy learning more about how to parent, rather than why to parent. > What parents really want is, How did you become an expert on "what parents really want?" You James Dobson are yah? > if spanking is > all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy > to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to > work. Yep, and they find it, more often than not. And more often than not they are not so locked into the punitive mindset they couldn't shift their awareness to anything new, and make it work. In fact nothing is easier than the simple techniques of non-punitive parenting. One does not have to worry about risk of abuse. One does not have to worry about one's one state of mind causing "overkill." And one can be sure the relationship will continue to be one of trust. They don't fail, like you did. I can see why you came back and are still here. That must smart knowing that millions of people, highly likely they themselves spanked as children, could make that shift successfully. And you, according to your own posting, could not. You couldn't even take advice on what might have gone astray. You immediately responded as though you had been attacked, rather than asked. "What is it," you must wonder, "that they knew that I didn't?" What they knew, lil 'o' is that the premise of punishment is wrong in itself. That children are busy learners and not misbehaving but simply behaving in the way both nature, and their parents have made available to them. If you treat them like they are misbehaving, you tehn DO have a hammer, and restrict yourself to it, and you DO think everything is a nail. > Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several > decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be > necessary. Why would it have to be "singular?" Aren't you being rather patronizing of the spanking parent? Just they have just ONE, "singular" way of responding to a child's unwanted behaviors? Heck, simple, easy to learn methods have been out there for decades. I first learned not just a new way to parent, but why, in the mid 70's, and it had been around naturally for far longer. That was the strangest part to find out. I immediately, after learning, began to spot people that were both the product of nonpunitive parenting, but parents who were not punitive with their children. The language and behaviors of both parties are different...and not noticed so much, because a behaving child and a calm in charge parent excite no interest or attention in the normal course of everyday life. As we used to say back then, it blew my mind. What could possibly have blocked me from seeing it before? Simple. A world view, from a society that taught me, that had not encompassed both empathy and awareness of the possibility that children were NOT misbehaving, but were simply developing. > Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking, Experience alone does not make an expert. Or even make one knowledgable. In fact, too much experience of the wrong kind can block one from seeing anything new. And simply repeating the same mistaken notions and resultant behaviors until they are concrete, like your poor head. > and > almost everyone knows what they're taking about, You have that on the best of proven fact, do you? Gee, the more spanking becomes unpopular the better our actual data about the behavior of youths become. Weird huh? Must be something in the water. 0:-> > no-spanks could > suggest *whatever* with the same universal understanding. We do. Frequently. LaVonne certainly has pointed to it. Other posters certainly have. One ex spanker made it plain here how he turned the corner. I've also done so even more times both with specifics names, and sources pointed to. You even tried one yourself and couldn't make it work. Likely one of two conditions existed that didn't allow you that tiny but significant, one should say monumental, breakthrough that must be part of changing a pattern of behavior. Either you did not take training, (or it was very poor...I've seen some given by people that had not given up punishment as a model and the belief that the child is 'misbehaving' as a reason for punishing) or you simply had been so betrayed as a child, and had so bought into the message your parents were giving you, (read Pieper and Pieper, "Smart Love") that you could not break out. Go back and dig out that old copy of Tom Gordon's book PET, read it over again, then read the Piepers as referenced above. The two together will explain it to you, if you can get it. By the way, raising my own two children resulted in my going back to college, driven solely by the desire to learn more about child development, aberrations, and methods for non-punitive child rearing methods. And I don't consider myself an exception. You one note babbling, lil 'o' is a dead giveaway to your sad view of children, parenting, and the world. Imagine thinking that a parent's children aren't important enough to them to work hard to gain more knowledge. Just imagine that. 0:-> So where are the studies? ;-) Doan > > This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined > > to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, in search [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > 0:-> Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any traction among parents. Beyond their obvious dissatisfaction with spanking, the no-spank movement has all the stability of a hollow eggshell. The whole ballgame is and always was about pointing accusatory fingers at spanking. There will be no studies. The money for funding less fruitful frivolous no-spank research has dried up. The previous funding for the research did not yield the promised results. Although not everyone will admit it, everyone knows it. Despite all the hype, the results were anticlimactic. Supposed alternatives delivered less than promised and were more time consuming than necessary. If no-spanks had taken a clue from the food industry, their agenda might have gotten further. Consumers, many of whom are parents, want convenience as well as quality. Instead, no-spanks over engineered their alternatives with total disregard for parents. In those counties where no-spanks could not outlaw spanking and had to demonstrate their product before parents would buy it, no-spank will go down as the Edsel of applied social sciences. Despite all the hype, childcare techniques are more about parents than about children. Much as no-spanks may wish, there is not enough money, time, or talent to ignore parents forever. Until no-spanks can clearly and convincingly show large numbers of parents how alternatives can simplify their lives, rather than further complicate matters, no-spanks will always be on the outside demanding to be heard. > So where are the studies? ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > > > 0:-> People are catching on the anti-spanking zealotS; researchers are beginning to ask for similar research on the non-cp alternatives. IOW, people are noticing that the anti-spanking zealotS emperor not only has no clothes on, but sometime no penis either! ;-) Doan > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > > > > > 0:-> In much the same way that the case study of the Edsel became a classic only in how to not market a new car, no-spank may be remembered as little more than a cautionary tale on how to not push an overly ambitious social agenda. Some future behavioral science reader might include a selection on The Spanking of No-Spank, The Grounding of No-Spank, No-Spank Stood in the Corner, or A No-No for No-Spank. > People are catching on the anti-spanking zealotS; researchers are > beginning to ask for similar research on the non-cp alternatives. [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > > > > > > > 0:-> > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any > traction among parents. Beyond their obvious dissatisfaction with > spanking, the no-spank movement has all the stability of a hollow > eggshell. The whole ballgame is and always was about pointing > accusatory fingers at spanking. Nope.. You lie. We in this newsgroup and most certainly among activists and advocates for gentle supportive parenting methods have produced copious amounts of useful information. By the way, why would you think that parenting should be confined to a "single easy to use alternative?" No other serious endeavor has such a limitation. Cooking a gourmet meal, for instance, is far less important than raising a child. I can eat hamburger and bread and survive. Humankind may not if we try to reduce parenting to a hamburger sandwich. > There will be no studies. Your declarations are interesting, as well as false. Silly soliloquies do not a fact make. There are studies. > The money for funding less fruitful > frivolous no-spank research has dried up. R R R... more wishful thinking? Of course it would be for "frivolous" research, and that's why the pro spank "researchers" (rehashers and data manipulators -- your basic plain old liar) find little support for their mindless lying blathering. > The previous funding for the > research did not yield the promised results. On the contrary. More exact research, even down to studying brainwave patterns in stressed subjects cuts ever closer to the bone on the risks that spankers take, mindlessly. > Although not everyone > will admit it, everyone knows it. It would be a fool that "admitted" to something that is not true. Reseach that shows poor outcomes for CP is doing just fine, and there is no lack of funding. And advocates are doing just fine as well, finding more and more funding as those how have it come to understand the need to put an end to barbarity. > Despite all the hype, the results > were anticlimactic. One man's opinion does not a universal given make. > Supposed alternatives delivered less than promised > and were more time consuming than necessary. Not according to parents that could and did use them. How is it you failed? Time consuming? Hardly. They come quickly to be less time consuming than spanking and punishment and without the risks of CP. > If no-spanks had taken a clue from the food industry, their agenda > might have gotten further. Consumers, many of whom are parents, want > convenience as well as quality. Spanking meets that dual criteria? Please explain. > Instead, no-spanks over engineered > their alternatives with total disregard for parents. They "engineered" to the task at hand, with the materials and it's potential and limitations well understood. Child is not a bridge, but we know that it's rather pointless to hammer a bridge, when careful fitting of parts is safer and more sound in the long run. > In those counties > where no-spanks could not outlaw spanking and had to demonstrate their > product before parents would buy it, no-spank will go down as the Edsel > of applied social sciences. What countries would that be? Canada for instance? Sweden. Canada gutted the old permissive spanking statute, and left it a shell that allows spanking so light it could be called a tap, and not to any portion of the body but the buttocks, and not to young children and older children. Doesn't leave much for child abusers, now does it, lil 'o' You delusional self serving twits called it a victory because spanking wasn't totally removed. The Canadian legislators know their obstinate and stupid consituency and are simply taking spanking away in stages. As for the Swedes, no the law came into effect and parents very quickly stopped spanking and began attending training classes on how to parent more effectively. The case against spanking: There are many arguments against spanking: bullet It is ineffective: Spanking a child will stop the child from misbehaving for the moment, but studies have shown that the child's compliance will only last for a short time; corporal punishment actually increases the child's non-compliant behavior in the future. Psychologist H. Stephen Glenn said "Corporal punishment is the least effective method [of discipline]. Punishment reinforces a failure identity. It reinforces rebellion, resistance, revenge and resentment. And, what people who spank children will learn is that it teaches more about you than it does about them that the whole goal is to crush the child. It's not dignified, and it's not respectful." 1 bullet It may trigger criminal, anti-social, violent, aggressive behavior later in life: A longitudinal study of 442 boys born in 1972, found that one out of every three boys -- those who have a specific version of a gene -- who was maltreated during childhood will be almost certain to exhibit anti-social or criminal behavior as an adult. Maltreatment was defined as including physical abuse. If this is true for boys subjected to physical abuse, one wonders if the violence associated with conventional levels of corporal punishment could also trigger violent or aggressive behavior later in life? Unfortunately, the study is recent, and researchers do not yet know what level of violence is needed to trigger the negative adult behavior. It can be argued that, in the absence of precise data, parents should err on the side of caution and avoid spanking at all costs. More details bullet It has been linked to many adult problems. Corporal punishment studies have linked spanking during childhood to higher levels of adult depression, psychiatric problems, and addictions. Another study shows that children who were spanked have a lower IQ when compared to children whose parents used other methods of discipline and control. bullet It can escalate to abuse: Because a spanking works for a while, the parent often repeats the spanking whenever the child misbehaves. Corporal punishment may then become a standard response to any misbehavior. This can lead to increasingly frequent and harsher spanking which can exceed the "reasonable force" threshold and become abuse. According to the Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse, "85% of all cases of physical abuse result from some form of over-discipline through the use of corporal punishment". Each year about 44 Canadian children are known to have been killed by family members; 35 of them by parents. The figures for the United States are probably about 10 times higher. bullet It can unintentionally cause serious physical damage: bullet Boxing on the ear can burst an eardrum. bullet Shaking can cause a concussion, whiplash, blindness, serious brain damage, or even death. bullet Spanking can injure muscles, the sciatic nerve, pelvis, coccyx (tail bone), genitals or spine. bullet Hitting a child's hands can injure bones, blood vessels, joints and ligaments; it can induce premature osteoarthritis. bullet A child who is hit can accidentally fall and seriously injure themselves. bullet It trains a child to use violence: Spanking can teach children that it is acceptable for the strong to use force against the weak -- the concept "Might makes right" is regularly reinforced. They have an increased likelihood of becoming more aggressive towards their siblings, their fellow students, and (later in life) against their spouses and their own children. Violence as a way of behaving is a learned response. bullet Slapping or any other type of force used on the buttocks is a sexual violation: The buttocks are an erogenous zone of the human body. Their nerve system is connected to the body's sexual nerve centers. Slapping them can involuntarily trigger feelings of sexual pleasure which become mixed with the pain. This can lead to confusion in the child's mind which influences the way in which they express their sexuality as adults. bullet Spanking lowers a child's IQ: A study at the University of New Hampshire, released in 1998-JUL, found that spanking children apparently slows down their intellectual development. 3 A study of 960 children found an average 4 point reduction in IQ among students, from and average IQ of 102 (above average) for children who are not spanked, to an average IQ 98 (below average) for who are. A reduction of 4 points is enough to have a significant negative functional effect on the students. More information bullet Spanking creates fear in the child: "The message a toddler gets from a slap or spanking is that a parent or other loved and trusted adult is prepared to induce pain and even do physical harm to force unquestioning obedience. That's terrifying to a little kid...However well-intentioned, a slap registers as the shattering of the whole deal between parent and child. Young children are left awash in feelings of fear, shame, rage, hostility, self-destructiveness and betrayal that they can't yet resolve or manage." Sweden is doing just fine. Thanks. > Despite all the hype, childcare techniques are more about parents than > about children. Like gardening techniques are more about the gardener than the plants? > Much as no-spanks may wish, there is not enough money, > time, or talent to ignore parents forever. "Ignore?" Hardly. Control? Yes. You betcha. > Until no-spanks can clearly > and convincingly show large numbers of parents how alternatives can > simplify their lives, rather than further complicate matters, no-spanks > will always be on the outside demanding to be heard. When has a campaign to show a chance in system was 'better' been the criteria for social change? Or successful? The arguments on slavery were very like that. A great deal of information both moral and practical was put forward toward ending slavery. It was met with bibilical quotations and cries of oppression of the businessmen (slave owners) and plantation owners. Hence the civil war. Consider yourself in one. I've known about it for 40 years and more. You still are in denial. I don't think it will be long now. Considering the changes in the world on this issue, and more especially here in the US. How many states have banned school paddling? We have Christians, mind you, now becoming advocates for non-CP parenting. And this is our tradition. One of struggle, then change. And you, you lucky fellah, get to watch history in the making. 0:-> > > So where are the studies? ;-) > > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > > > > > 0:-> > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any > traction among parents. That one cracks me up. There are zillions of good books out there. Ok I exaggerate. But there seems to be a strong resistance to the spanking nuts out there to actually *reading them*. So anyway I will try one more time. "Discipline For Life: Getting it Right with Children" by Madelyn Swift. The thing that is troublesome is that non-punitive parenting is *harder* than than just behavior modification and giving a good whack on the backside when you don't like what you see. It involves thinking hard about the values you want to pass on. It involves learning new skills that feel ackward since we were not rasied with them. But in my short experience, it works FAR better than the punitive counterparts at getting cooperation with enthusiasm. Anyway, I am not sure why I bother... > Beyond their obvious dissatisfaction with > spanking, the no-spank movement has all the stability of a hollow [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > simplify their lives, rather than further complicate matters, no-spanks > will always be on the outside demanding to be heard. How alternatives can SIMPLIFY THE PARENTS' LIVES? Is that the goal of parenting? Holy sh.t. Why have kids? Honestly, you are right. If that is the goal then those that espouse non-punitive discipline are f.cked because making the parents' lives easier is not the goal of discipline. >> So where are the studies? ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] >> > >> > 0:-> > > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > exaggerate. But there seems to be a strong resistance to the spanking nuts > out there to actually *reading them*. Nooo...wherever did you get that idea? 0;-> > So anyway I will try one more time. > "Discipline For Life: Getting it Right with Children" by Madelyn Swift. The > thing that is troublesome is that non-punitive parenting is *harder* than > than just behavior modification and giving a good whack on the backside when > you don't like what you see. I disagree. I should be far more difficult, "harder," than "giving a whack" than a simple word or two. All I ever needed, once I undestood that children are doing their compelled learning. "Later" and of course follow through. "I'll teach you how to do that so you don't break the jar." and again, follow through. etc. > It involves thinking hard about the values you > want to pass on. It involves learning new skills that feel ackward since we > were not rasied with them. Actually I found for most people that the shift in perspective was harder than the behavior change. Once they got it that the common view of children as some kind of resistance trouble maker was factually incorrect, and saw the child as a learner, all kinds of things became immediately possible. Not that there wasn't some behavior (skills) change awkwardness, but they found the results more than worth the small inconvenience of not "feeling right" for a short time. > But in my short experience, it works FAR better > than the punitive counterparts at getting cooperation with enthusiasm. > Anyway, I am not sure why I bother... ...because of the tremendous value you placed on "getting cooperation with enthusiasm," knowing yourself how very much more powerful that is than reluctant compliance, or worse, faked cooperation. I'd rather have a defiant child than one faking cheery willingness. The latter makes me want to both cry and shiver in fear at the same time. Those are the children that grow up to kill, to become socio and other kinds of psychopaths. > > Beyond their obvious dissatisfaction with > > spanking, the no-spank movement has all the stability of a hollow [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > goal then those that espouse non-punitive discipline are f.cked because > making the parents' lives easier is not the goal of discipline. Could you have nailed it more precisely? This demand for a proven "single alternative" is such a cackle. Sounds like the Senate committee 'interviewing' Alito. Much pontification, with boring self aggrandizement, ruminations, and other garbage, and a question requiring an answer to something unanswerable because the real world doesn't work that way. You know ANY parents that have the answer to "single simple alternative?" The nearest I ever came was in deciding on learning and applying non punitive methods. THEN and only then did my parening become 'simple.' To me, effective is simple, as any normal thinking person knows. It's the ineffective take a shot at the easy way that turns into a nightmare of complexity and unwanted secondary and tertiary outcomes. In parent that's called, "TEENS!" Mine were a delight, frankly. And the skills carry forward easily. If my child was considering or had tried something I didn't think was safe or good for them, as a teen, all I had to do was invoke the same thoughtful language of their childhood: "What do you think will happen if you do that?" And, "If you go in that direction what are the pros and cons?" Since my children had been taught to think for themselves (and for us that usual "throwaway " comment meant a great deal more...in that they had to THINK and rely on facts and reality, not the babbling self delusion of the bullshit artists lil 'o' and a few others here indulge in) they immediately found themselves in a dilemma where they either had to present facts, or admit that it's not much of an idea and their needs or wants could be better directed or executed. Isn't it interesting that TS (The Spankers) seem to also think that their children aren't worth the supposed extra "trouble?" Just what one would expect though, when it comes to valuing their children as evidenced by them chosing to hit them (and call it "spanking"). 0:-> ...snipping the twaddle of the pro spanking compulsives...... >> > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet >> > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > whack" than a simple word or two. All I ever needed, once I undestood > that children are doing their compelled learning. It is the transition that is difficult. But since it is inventment discipline, you reap the benefits of ease as time goes on. > "Later" and of course follow through. "I'll teach you how to do that so > you don't break the jar." and again, follow through. etc. [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > ...snipping the twaddle of the pro spanking compulsives...... You can also "look in the archives", Stephanie. LaVonne and Kane0 promised that they are in there! ;-) I wonder if jolting a SIX-YEAR OLD with 50,000 volt taser is one of those alternative. ;-) Doan > > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > >> > > >> > 0:-> Tasers are incredibly painful. No individual to my knowledge has volunteered to be a demonstration subject the second time around. Despite the low amperage, they can also prove to be deadly under the right circumstances. > You can also "look in the archives", Stephanie. LaVonne and Kane0 > promised that they are in there! ;-) I wonder if jolting a SIX-YEAR [quoted text clipped - 200 lines] > > >> > > > >> > 0:-> Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with spare time and disposable income. A primary problem is that in a world where lone parenting is rapidly becoming the norm, time and income often come at the expense of other things such as food and sleep. Lack of sleep is already being compared to being as dangerous as drinking! No matter how many books they may have read, sleepy and irritable adults usually make lousy parents. A secondary problem is that there is no consistent message that can be encapsulated in a single word or phrase other than "don't spank." That is the message that no-spanks tried to deliver in the media and it fell flat on its face. Parents are going to use what they know and are comfortable using. That will not change. It is up to no-spanks to accommodate parents rather than the other way around. Otherwise, no-spanks will continue to spin its wheels without getting much traction with most parents over time. > > Despite all their wheel spinning and smoking tires, no-spanks have yet > > to come up with a single easy to use alternative that has gained any [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > >> > > >> > 0:-> You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish parents has learned. "Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they rely on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment. The method most commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents as well as children to express their anger in words. Parents insist that discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking firm hold of young children to engage their attention. Parents and professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or that yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion. Still, many point out that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating than physical punishment." It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict resolution"! ;-) Doan > Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with > spare time and disposable income. A primary problem is that in a world [quoted text clipped - 211 lines] > > >> > > > >> > 0:-> He who yells the longest and the loudest wins! Wonder how many parents with teenagers want to turn their home into the Jerry Springer show on a nightly basis? > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 231 lines] > > > >> > > > > >> > 0:-> > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It is better to yell at your kid - just call it "verbal conflict > resolution"! ;-) That's why I specifically refer to non-punitive discipline rather than highlighting specifically spanking. > Doan > [quoted text clipped - 277 lines] >> > >> > >> > >> > 0:-> > > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish > > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's why I specifically refer to non-punitive discipline rather than > highlighting specifically spanking. The problem is how you define "non-punitive". Kane posted a study where 90% of the parents are "non-punitive"! Do an analysis of your "non-punitive" discipline and see how they compare to spanking. Gee! Let's me look in the "archives". They are there somewhere or could LaVonne and Kane0 be lying? ;-) Doan > > > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish > > > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Doan -------------------- None of that is relevant. You would like to confuse everyone with pseudo-logic. You're a sh.t-f.cking liar! Steve >> > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish >> > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > The problem is how you define "non-punitive". Every time I have ever tried to engage you in dialog, you rant about other posters who are lying. I don't know the studies to which you refer. ANd I doubt very much I am going to see anything other than ranting out of you. > Kane posted a study where > 90% of the parents are "non-punitive"! Do an analysis of your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Doan > >> > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what Swedish > >> > parents has learned. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > posters who are lying. I don't know the studies to which you refer. ANd I > doubt very much I am going to see anything other than ranting out of you. I don't accuse others of lying withou proof. In this case, I asked for studies that compared non-cp alternatives to spanking under the same statistical analysis. LaVonne & Kane0 said they have provided them "numerous times"; all you have to do is to "look in the archives". I called their bluff and PUBLICLY called them LIARS because no such study existed. I've even posted the proof from anti-spanking researcher like Gershoff who have acknowledged such fact: "Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true, just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However, it is important to note that their argument does point to the need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not just corporal punishment." Now, do me a favor, Stephanie. Please search the "archives" to see if you can find such a study. If you can, I will PUBLICLY apologize to both of them. Doan >> >> > You can also buy into the anti-spanking agenda and learn what >> >> > Swedish [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > if you can find such a study. If you can, I will PUBLICLY apologize > to both of them. I don't CARE about such a study. I don't have the foggiest notion why you responded to me requesting that I find such a study. How can you have a study that demonstrates positive methods are good at controlling children when the goal IS NOT TO CONTROL?? How do you feel about cooperating when someone wants to control you? You do the least amount of whatever to cover your own a.s, then in the privacy of your home, bathroom, bedroom or whatever, you think the authority figure who attempted to control you is a jackass. Why would it be any different for children? > Doan > > Every time I have ever tried to engage you in dialog, you rant about other > > posters who are lying. I don't know the studies to which you refer. ANd I > > doubt very much I am going to see anything other than ranting out of you. > > > I don't accuse others of lying withou proof. ----------------------- How stupid. Of course you do. Steve > Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with > spare time and disposable income. A primary problem is that in a world [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A secondary problem is that there is no consistent message that can be > encapsulated in a single word or phrase other than "don't spank." I am not sure what you are saying? Is this supposed to be some decent argument for the appropriateness of spanking or other punitive "discipline" methods? Or an expression of exasperation that people will spank because they are too stupid or tired to gain understanding for the best interest of their children? If it is the latter, I wish I were hopeful enough to disagree with you. > That > is the message that no-spanks tried to deliver in the media and it fell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > no-spanks will continue to spin its wheels without getting much > traction with most parents over time. Well by the theory of Darwin and the survival of the fittest, over time those with the better upbringing through the generations may well prevail socially, economically and thus make change in the system somehow. It's a damned shame. It's the kids of the parents whose brains are locked in the off position who are thinking only of their own convenience that suffer. I need not make *a decent argument* for or against spanking when the fact remains that, until no-spanks come up with an effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, the status quo will prevail. "Don't spank" is not a solution and bad mouthing parents that spank is counterproductive. > > Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with > > spare time and disposable income. A primary problem is that in a world [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > damned shame. It's the kids of the parents whose brains are locked in the > off position who are thinking only of their own convenience that suffer. >I need not make *a decent argument* for or against spanking when the > fact remains that, until no-spanks come up with an effective and easy > to use alternative to spanking, the status quo will prevail. "Don't > spank" is not a solution and bad mouthing parents that spank is > counterproductive. *Sigh* and to think that parents might be motivated to actually think in the name of the well being of their children. If it is true that parents really *are* actually motivated only by their convenience, then what you say is true. What a sad, sad commentary. > Sure the books are out there. A few may actually be read by those with > spare time and disposable income. Mmm...libraries? They will order books for you they don't stock, but I can assure you they stock all the latest parenting tomes. As for income? Well, one spends on what one considers important. Now don't they? > A primary problem is that in a world > where lone parenting is rapidly becoming the norm, time and income > often come at the expense of other things such as food and sleep. So poor parenting is the norm for them? Interestingly there is quite a body of investigation that says the same thing. Not that I agree, but they learn rather quickly, if they aren't locked into loser mode <chuckle> that a little learning goes a long way when it comes to reducing the stress and time involved with child rearing. > Lack > of sleep is already being compared to being as dangerous as drinking! Lack of folic acid has been blamed for increased spina bifida. > No matter how many books they may have read, sleepy and irritable > adults usually make lousy parents. Funny how having your child joyfully trust you relieves those problems. > A secondary problem is that there is no consistent message that can be > encapsulated in a single word or phrase other than "don't spank." Yep. You got that right. Any particular discipline you know of, professionally, or as a hobby that can be encapsulated in a single word? Is that your demand of those that advocate for no spanking...that they come up with a single word to encapsulate it all? You remind me of the creationists that pretend to be scientists. They demand in terms that have nothing to do with reality. It's cute to watch. And easy to dispute and rebutt. Give us a consistent message that can be encapsulated in a single word or phrase other than "spank." I look forward to it. > That > is the message that no-spanks tried to deliver in the media and it fell > flat on its face. That there is a single phrase or word that encapsulates "don't spank?" Please provide a single proof that that has been tried. > Parents are going to use what they know and are > comfortable using. That will not change. Some will, some won't. Your problem is that in fact it will, has, and is changing. Too bad. > It is up to no-spanks to > accommodate parents rather than the other way around. No it isn't. "no-spanks" aren't asking parents not to spank them, but rather not to spank their children. The accomodation goes to the child, not the none spank advocate. Do it, or don't. It's entirely up to the spankers what they do. And so many are moving to the non-spank methods. > Otherwise, > no-spanks will continue to spin its wheels without getting much > traction with most parents over time. Well, given that we are winning folks over, have been for decades, and spanking hold less real popularity than ever, looks like our traction is pretty good. What I find amusing is that TS keep posting the same old long rebutted sources in defense of spanking. While the evidence for non-spanking continues to grow and grow and grow. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=non-spanking&btnG=Google+Search Notice the citation from Sugenor. I believe that Chris embarassed him rather severely. He caught him fudging from one section of his own book to another. Out of control "unspanked" teens, turned to indeed been spanked. Right in the same book. Lazerlere has been taken most profoundly to the woodshed <smile> by the otherside, and very specifically been found simply not telling the truth....again. It's all you poor saps have got. Now you sit there all alone at your keyboard pretending you are talking to someone that you are not, and making it up as you go. Nearly everything you claim, propose, or challenge with, is either a lie or ignorance rampant. So it's down to propaganda with continually diminishing support from anywhere for your nonsense. All I find out there from the pro side these days is opinions, lil 'o'. And you are entitled to them....but that does not make them, no matter the number, the truth. In fact the spankers are falling deeper and deeper into a statistical black hole. You are fewer and fewer than ever. Schools have been showing children for a decade or so that Corporal Punishment is not necessary for them to learn. They are coming up to child bearing age and while some may have the parental model that sad folks such as you provide, they also have the teacher model.... and kids do get terribly attached to their teachers and tend to want to emulate them. The reduction in school paddling and even the punishment model being replaced by the supportive teaching model is becoming thoroughly integrated in society. LaVonne, bless her, is part of that, as I understand her professional work. Must really piss you phonys in this ng off something terrible. She's so good at it that she was the prime influence on me (and over a half century of experience) to give up waiting for you miserable child assaulting wretches to reform yourselves. I was naive enough to think that parental love was enough to reach you. Seems I was wrong. I'm fully behind the concept of laws against assault being extended to children, and the repeal of any laws that permit the use of CP., and I am a lobbiest, and an activist that writes, buttonholes and calls in a great deal. I've influenced state and federal legislation before, and I can do it again. And I can afford to do it full time. 0:-> Do you think the sky will fall? R R R R R R > This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined > to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, ----------------------- Only to you who are desperate for it to seem so to you. > What parents really want is, if spanking is > all that bad for kids, something that is at least as effective and easy > to implement as spanking for those times when nothing else seems to > work. ------------------------- But control of others is dishonest and does not work in the longest run. "Something" that is "as effective" is NOT what genuinely loving intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion of controlling others is WRONG, and EVIL! You will never wind up with people who do good from good motives that way, people who will do Good when you're not there or after you're long dead, that will NEVER HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF YOUR COERCIVE CONTROL STRATEGIES!! Instead you have to enlist them in the army of Goodness and Love and Respect by using YOUR Goodness and Love and Respect, and ASKING their participation in that way, and giving them reasons why it works when they ask, because nothing else does that!! And trying to MAKE them do Good WILL NEVER WORK, they will hate you, and that sort of effort is in fact the incarnate hatred and dishonoring of them!! Evil IS the warped backward mirror image of Good!! > Had no-spanks produced that singular strategy or technique several > decades ago, the current dog and pony show would no longer be > necessary. ----------------- The methods of Goodness are universally known and understood, but the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in fact the Truth is really that they simply wish to continue to do Evil! > Much like experienced parents still suggest spanking, -------------------- Long-failed parents pretend their failure was "all they could do", instead of accepting the blame for their stupid Evil weakness and cruel venality. Steve >> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined >> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But control of others is dishonest and does not work in the longest > run. "Something" that is "as effective" Well I guess it depends on what you want to be effective AT. If you want to be effective at raising healthy, responsible, mentally stable, loving, wonderful grown ups, then being effective is nice. If you want to be effective at getting your kid into submission, then I would say one would have a screwed up goal. > is NOT what genuinely loving > intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion > of controlling others is WRONG, Agreed. > and EVIL! You will never wind up with > people who do good from good motives that way, people who will do Good [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ----------------- > The methods of Goodness are universally known and understood, I don't think this is so. I think that we cling to what we know from our own childhood, and transitioning to a new way of thinking can bend the brain a bit. It is worth the effort, but it is not any more universally known than any other thing I think. I think we have moved, as a society, far enough away from it that it looks funny to us. > but > the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cruel venality. > Steve > >> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are inclined > >> to wade through no-spank research, much of it questionable, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > effective at getting your kid into submission, then I would say one would > have a screwed up goal. -------------------------- Yes. > > is NOT what genuinely loving > > intelligent people SHOULD want, because it's WRONG, the entire notion [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > any other thing I think. I think we have moved, as a society, far enough > away from it that it looks funny to us. ------------------------- I mean it in this way: Even the worst psychopath loves themself and wishes good things for themself. Everyone knows what Goodness is, they just can't get it right regarding others. So yes, you're right it is hard to get it right, but everyone knows Good when they see it done to them! Steve > > but > > the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > cruel venality. > > Steve >> >> This really cuts to the core of the problem. Few parents are >> >> inclined [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Good when they see it done to them! > Steve Perhaps. Or that disconnect could be a compelling definition of a type of mental illness. >> > but >> > the Evil prefer to imagine that Goodness is "unworkable", when in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > cruel venality. >> > Steve > Have any looked in the "archives" and found the studies that LaVonne > and Kane0 said they have posted "numerous times"? Could they be LYING? --------- No. You're the liar. It's obvious. Steve Sure older comments can be found regarding the state of youth. That those comments were made in the past does not invalidate the current observations. Human history moves in cycles. The older comments merely prove the fallacy of progress as an ongoing process. One person's progress is another's anarchy. So, if you think sex in the classroom or teachers screwing kids (other than in the grade book) is your notion of progress, don't let me stop you. > > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise > [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC). > Sure older comments can be found regarding the state of youth. That > those comments were made in the past does not invalidate the current [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than in the grade book) is your notion of progress, don't let me stop > you. I don't see anything in Mike's commentary that would lead us to believe he approves of or accepts teacher's screwing kids, (presuming you are referring to sexual activity) and "sex in the classroom" other than it being taught about. That's all you've ever had, lil 'o', your opinions, insinuations, and inability to actually debate and issue. All topped off with a frosting of brown sh.t you think are "facts." You seem entirely unable to refute my data on what youth actually are doing these days. As in lower violent crime than ever before, and much less than adults. I don't see you whining about adults misbehaving, lil 'o' why is that? You can stop pretending you don't read my posts, observer. It's no more believable than your claim not to be observer. Kane > > > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > > > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise > > [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC). > Sure older comments can be found regarding the state of youth. That > those comments were made in the past does not invalidate the current > observations. ----------------- Nor do they have to, but it illustrates the kind of ignorance you clearly mis-identify as the truth. > Human history moves in cycles. ------------------ No, that's just what people from previous cycles LIKE to think, it simplifies things for them, erroneously. > The older comments > merely prove the fallacy of progress as an ongoing process. ---------------------- That's like pretending evolution has an end, it's rank ignorance. > One person's progress is another's anarchy. ------------------------ When the "other" person is not equipped to understand the next level of progress, yes. > So, if you think sex in the classroom or teachers screwing kids (other > than in the grade book) is your notion of progress, don't let me stop > you. --------------------------------- It is, actually, and you won't ever grasp why. You'll just die. Steve > > > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > > > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise > > [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC). > Last fall, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about > rudeness asked: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 69% said "more rude." An equal number of respondents blamed "parents > not teaching good manners to children." ---------------------- Every poll since Socrates has discovered that people think that. They think that because they're stupid and frustrated, as people have always been. > Not surprisingly, the number of violent youth gangs in America has also > exploded in the past few years. Gangs such as MS-13 are particularly > worrisome. ---------------------------- And THAT happens because of violence at home, not a lack of it. And it happens because of economic disenfranchisement. > Then there is rampant sexual experimentation that is so pervasive as to > spillover into the public school classroom! --------------------------------- IOW, You mean they are beating each other and having SM sex in class now. Which asinine assertion makes you a total moronic whack-job. Sex is entirely unrelated to gang violence. Teens are impolite because they need to be to be normal humans when adults are abusive boors. It has always been so, and these stupid boors have always complained and whined about it instead of reforming themselves. > > all i know is i got the belt and got smacked when i done things wrong or > > bad and that made me into a polite , considerate person , that > > understands that doing certain things is incorrect unlike 70% of > > teenagers and older are like today , ive witnessed uncontrolable , > > inpolite , awful , very abusive to their parents because they had no > > punnishment when they where younger --------------------- And this screw-ball above is an ignorant trolling sh.t to begin with, who is probably talking to himself here in these two sock-puppets. Steve > > Do you where that line is when you hit your kid, Kane0? ;-) > > Nope, that's why I never did it again. Just once. Very lightly really, > through a heavy quilt, blanket and sheet. In my mind I obviously was > across the line into abusiveness though. Actually mental abuse. So you are an admitted "child-abuser"? > Have you seen me claim I know where the line is by the way? Nope! You are stupid, however! ;-) > It's you folks that claim you know and justify spanking and support of > spanking thereby. So? Where is it? "Reasonable standard"! > > How about the line between talking to your kid and verbal-abuse? > > Of course not. That's humanly impossible. But I can choose not to hit. > I cannot chose not to > speak, or communicate. Are you so stupid? Of course you can chose not to speak. Deaf people have been using sign language for years! You can also chose to pass notes to your kids. > I'm sure I've crossed that line as well, since I must speak to my child > and I cannot know where the line is for them, or the circumstances, > exactly. What? You called your kid a "smelly-c.nt" also? > I suspect though, given my way of parenting they received the minimum > possible damage possible in a parent child relationship. You suspect? > I can chose to not spank and do no harm whatsoever. It's your choice! > I can chose not the speak, and that would be harmful. Not if use your common-sense and be "reasonable". > So between the two, I spoke. You have a choice. > Now shall we look at walking with my child? Eating with my child? > Singing with my child? Playing catch with my child? Sure. Is your child growing up to be an Einstein, a MLK or a mother Theresa? Wait a minute, you said Einstein was not spanked, right? ;-) Doan > 0:-> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > > > > 0:-> > > > Do you where that line is when you hit your kid, Kane0? ;-) > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > So you are an admitted "child-abuser"? -------------------- No. Instead you're a lying piece of filth. Steve Moving right along to the more san approaches to this issue.... 0:-> http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060107/OPINION01/6010700 5/1052 Apparently there still is no official answer to the question, where IS that blasted LINE. All the authorities could answer, after convicting a mother of child abuse for using a belt on her daughter was, "use your common sense." Talk about a cop-out. It's quite obvious the mother was sure she was using her "common sense," and she got busted for what she did to her daughter. Pretty soon things will move along to the obvious. Don't take the risk, the risks of many kinds that go with corporal punishment. A some magical point I do not know, there will be enough people of the opinion that this is good sense and needs to be made law, it will be. I don't think that time is all that far off, since one doesn't need a majority to create a law in this country. 0:-> > > > > > Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > > > > > Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Doan ------------------------------------- You mean out of your head. You're a f.cking insane liar. Steve One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others that, as with Kane, not a single no-spank bothered to tell him to put a lid on it. This could go a long way in explaining why the no-spank agenda has largely gone nowhere with middle of the road parents. For most parents, taking advice from potty-mouthed no-spanks has all the appeal of feeding kids the contents of an unflushed toilet. Along with Kane, Waltz is now in my killfile. > One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the > discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > appeal of feeding kids the contents of an unflushed toilet. Along > with Kane, Waltz is now in my killfile. You don't have us in your killfile, liar. And we don't give advice they same way we answer liars and unethical folks such as you. Are you so sick in the head that you have only one way of speaking to everyone? Very strange. But then I noticed that about you long ago, obsessive the liar. 0:-> > One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the > discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others > that, as with Kane, not a single no-spank bothered to tell him to put a > lid on it. This could go a long way in explaining why the no-spank > agenda has largely gone nowhere with middle of the road parents. An alternative explanation is that SW is NOT one of our kids, we've read much of what he has to say, and know that there IS no approach that will change him -- so we simply choose to say nothing. Many, many already have him kill-filed. >For > most parents, taking advice from potty-mouthed no-spanks has all the > appeal of feeding kids the contents of an unflushed toilet. Along > with Kane, Waltz is now in my killfile. > SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care Rather obviously, the no-spank movement suffers from the same difficulty that is afflicting Christianity. No one can shut up the village idiots. Has anyone tried spanking them. That might work. :-) > > One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the > > discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > Rather obviously, the no-spank movement suffers from the same > difficulty that is afflicting Christianity. No one can shut up the > village idiots. > > Has anyone tried spanking them. That might work. :-) I agree that christians do seem to be the village idiots. > Rather obviously, the no-spank movement suffers from the same > difficulty that is afflicting Christianity. ------------------ Nonsense, you're on the wrong side. Xtians are insane abusive antichild antisexual bigots. We're abusive only of those abusers. > No one can shut up the > village idiots. --------------------- The Xtian Fundy Bigots. Yes. We'll shut them up, in a little while. We'll eliminate them. Steve > > One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the > > discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > much of what he has to say, and know that there IS no approach that will > change him -- so we simply choose to say nothing. ------------------- The Truth is immutable, AND UN-MUTABLE! > Many, many already have him kill-filed. -------------------- You don't, and you know no others either. Steve > One thing has become readily apparent since Stephen waltzed into the > discussion. No-spanks are so comfortable with verbal abuse of others ---------------------- Which these child-abusers richly deserve, in fact they deserve to be taken out and immediately killed. > most parents, taking advice from potty-mouthed no-spanks has all the > appeal of feeding kids the contents of an unflushed toilet. --------------------------- Calling you sh.t the sh.t you are is just and true. You're the toilet, what you're called is what you are! > Along > with Kane, Waltz is now in my killfile. ----------------------- You can't even spell it, so you can't killfile it. Steve >>Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by >>Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You're a f.cking liar. > Steve You're to much of a dumbass to know a distortion from the truth ! You've done a fine job of distorting your own warped mind to uselessness.... bugger off ! > >>Straus, Murray A. & Vera E. Mouradian. 1998 "Impulsive Corporal Punishment by > >>Mothers and Antisocial Behavior and Impulsiveness of children." Behavioral [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > bugger off ! ------------------ Eat sh.t and die, you lying turd. Steve Shelters are generally considered to be temporary housing rather than great places for kids to live until the age of emancipation. A radical change in environment found in shelters, where newcomers are showered with attention from strangers, may have as much influence on bewildered kids from a conflicted households as anything else. Kids in a shelter are sometimes victims of rampant abuse. Any kindness is welcome in much the same way that a few slices from a can of peaches can seem like a feast to a neglected child. Meanwhile, as families disintegrate, about 22,000 youth gangs have attracted almost 3/4-million members as gang culture spreads throughout the United States. Almost all cities with a 6-figure population exhibit some evidence of gang activity. These really are not kids with a lifestyle conducive to peace and tranquility in a typical shelter. Their tactics and thought processes increasingly resemble those used by the Mafia. Kindness is synonymous with weakness and is to be exploited. While you may not like my comment about wife beating, the fact is that it is impossible to eradicate. Moreover, my statement said nothing about whether or not I opposed wife beating. You took a value neutral statement out of context and jumped to a conclusion that fit your prejudices. Although intended to protect women, domestic violence laws in the United States increasingly snare pugnacious women in some places while similar laws go sporadically enforced in others. Smacking women is an accepted practice in several ethnic communities. In some countries it is considered to be evidence of commitment or is considered to be a cultural obligation. Of course, if you want to judge other people's cultures, have at it. Don't be bashful; tell us how superior your ideas are when compared to those who do things differently! It is the eternal trademark of an obstinate bigot who, while jumping all over a statement about opposition to wife beating, conveniently ignores a parallel statement about those who oppose ethnic discrimination! Come on, Mikie, put a white pillowcase over your head and show us your true self. > > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > But your comment about people who oppose wife beating pretty much sums you > up. > Shelters are generally considered to be temporary housing rather than > great places for kids to live until the age of emancipation. In fact, though there is slight variation in the meaning, there are never used for children to live in. There are two kinds, essentially. One is very temporary. It's usually an 'intake' facility where children come when removed from parents during an investigation of abuse. The child's health is checked, they are transported to various needed or required facilities...say for a forensic investigation of sexual and or physical abuse. >From there they either return to their parents or on to a longer term foster home for later disposition. They might also go to an extended family member for "kinship" foster care. The names vary from state to state but the processes and agencies do the same kinds services. > A radical > change in environment found in shelters, where newcomers are showered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > much the same way that a few slices from a can of peaches can seem like > a feast to a neglected child. Mmmhhhmmm....? This seems to have so very little to do with Michael's contribution. I hope you get to some point. > Meanwhile, as families disintegrate, > about 22,000 youth gangs have attracted almost 3/4-million members as > gang culture spreads throughout the United States. Nothing quite like poverty, rundown neglected neighborhoods with poor to no garbage service, streets left uncleaned and unrepaired, dead bulbs in streetlights not repaired, poor public transportation services (often none after 10pm) and generations of people subject to the most vile racism and dismissal by mainstream America. > Almost all cities > with a 6-figure population exhibit some evidence of gang activity. > These really are not kids with a lifestyle conducive to peace and > tranquility in a typical shelter. You don't find them there. > Their tactics and thought processes > increasingly resemble those used by the Mafia. Actually it's the "warrior" syndrome. Living in high risk combat likely environments produce that in any kind of population so exposed. > Kindness is synonymous > with weakness and is to be exploited. Sometimes, and sometimes not. Depends on the person. You still haven't addressed Michael's mention of nospanking in shelters. > While you may not like my comment about wife beating, the fact is that > it is impossible to eradicate. So is bankrobbery. > Moreover, my statement said nothing > about whether or not I opposed wife beating. Do you, or don't you? > You took a value neutral > statement out of context and jumped to a conclusion that fit your > prejudices. Out of context? YOU, are right now trying desparately to REMOVE it from the context of hitting children, and that you are trying to use that because laws don't 100% successfully stop a behavior then the law itself is not needed, or is in fact bad for society. > Although intended to protect women, domestic violence laws > in the United States increasingly snare pugnacious women in some places > while similar laws go sporadically enforced in others. In the first instance that's what it's supposed to do. Address ALL domestic violence, regardless of sex of the perp and victim. As for the second, you might have noticed about a decade and a half ago enforcement efforts went UP. In fact to the point in some states that if a domestic violence call is responded to it's highly likey both participants will be cited. Kinda pisses you of, dudnit? > Smacking women > is an accepted practice in several ethnic communities. In some > countries it is considered to be evidence of commitment or is > considered to be a cultural obligation. Do you approve of that? > Of course, if you want to judge other people's cultures, have at it. You do it all the time, if you are accepting the practice. You are judging it 'okay.' > Don't be bashful; tell us how superior your ideas are when compared to > those who do things differently! It's not the least difficult to defend against assault regardless of the culture, observer. Or do you approve? > It is the eternal trademark of an > obstinate bigot who, Lil 'o' you are projecting like your long nose here. > while jumping all over a statement about > opposition to wife beating, conveniently ignores a parallel statement > about those who oppose ethnic discrimination! But you made no such statement until now. How could he ignore something you haven't said yet? Be frank, Lil 'o'. Yer on the sauce, ain'tcha? > Come on, Mikie, put a > white pillowcase over your head and show us your true self. The logic is inescapable. If he doesn't repond to something you haven't said yet, presumes from the context in which you actually made the remark about wife beating that you excuse it on the grounds the law is insufficient to completely stop it, then it follows he's a racist bigot and KKK member. Got it. Gosh, why didn't I ever think of this extraordinary debating ploy? By the way, in case you missed it...which I suspect you do as you let your fingers do your mindless babbling for you, here's what you said, in context. It most definately is an excuse for wife beating: "Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because the panoply of laws begin to conflict with one another. " Or possibly you meant something else. Care to explain what you did mean in terms of being against wife beating? Or are you not against it? Could be Michael needs to be chastized for misunderstanding your statement. I'm sure he can pull that white sheet off long enough to help you sort this out a bit. What say, Michael, would you lose your good standing with The Klan if you sorted out our lil 'o' just a bit? R R R R R Observer, you are a card. Not a whit smarter than when last you haunted this ng with your strange defenses of the indefensible. You might like looking at some of your old messages. You'll see the theme and writing style give you away most clearly: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_thread/thread/8b319 43b0ba205bd/75e9c3e1ecd5d497?lnk=st&q=wife+spouse&rnum=1#75e9c3e1ecd5d497 http://tinyurl.com/b8c7t Or was that just your evil twin? R R R R R.....<smirk> http://tinyurl.com/bdco7 I was particularly amused at this Lil 'o' trying to slyly support spousal abuse under the guize of "emotional" abuse breaking up marraiges. http://tinyurl.com/7n6m9 Isn't it amazing how very much you and "observer" appear to think and write from the link above? "Like a moth flitting around a candle's flame, the wife beating issue seems to irresistibly attract antispanking zealots. " Observer, I doubt you've fooled anyone here but those unfamiliar with your earlier postings. You certainly gave yourself away in your very first post under your new socky. R R R R Still a violence advocating sociopath I see. I'd hoped your time away had been spent in therapy. Obviously no such luck. 0:-> > > > One of the strategies of no-spanks has been to find extremes and then > > > try to paint that as the norm. Examples include psychotic pastors who [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > But your comment about people who oppose wife beating pretty much sums you > > up. >> Shelters are generally considered to be temporary housing rather than >> great places for kids to live until the age of emancipation. This was a battered woman's shelter and the kids usually came along. > Shelters are generally considered to be temporary housing rather than > great places for kids to live until the age of emancipation. A radical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much the same way that a few slices from a can of peaches can seem like > a feast to a neglected child. -------------------- You're mistaking poverty for neglect and avoiding abuse altogether. You're a systematic liar. Steve This is too priceless to miss! > Much like those who oppose wife beating or various forms of > discrimination, no-spanks require laws to perpetuate their agenda. Darn those individuals that oppose wife beating and discrimination anyway. They had the nerve to actually fight for laws that gave legal protection to previously unprotected individuals. There was a time when they actually fought for laws that eliminated slavery, lead to women's rights, and helped decrease discrimination. > When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more > laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because > the panoply of laws begin to conflict with one another. Are the laws inadequate? Yes. Is the scheme unworkable? I don't know. I do know that slavery is no longer legal. I know that I can vote, hold property, and can no longer be legally beaten by my husband. Because of laws, I am no longer considered property of of my husband. I know that my children can sit anywhere they choose when riding a bus. They can drink out of a public fountain. They can frequent any restaurant. They can hold public office. Women and minorities still experience discrimination. Children still have extremely inadequate protection from school and parental physical assault. However, things are better than in days past and things will continue to improve. Laws make a difference. LaVonne > Complexity is the Achilles heel of reform. Until no-spanks can find > some effective and easy to use alternative to spanking, their agenda [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>>>as high as those whose parenting environment was punitive at both ages. >>>>... " >This is too priceless to miss! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >they actually fought for laws that eliminated slavery, lead to women's >rights, and helped decrease discrimination. To lie and paint people who spank their children as slave owners and beaters, only shows that you know you don't have an argument to make. A person who relies on facts and right, doesn't need to use those tactics. >> When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more >> laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >assault. However, things are better than in days past and things will >continue to improve. Laws make a difference. What is clear, is that your husband is an unhappy man and that you are either childless, or the parent of a brat and fight your husband because he wants to discipline the child. Now go ahead and tell some lies about me. You can enjoy writing to yourself. You go into my kill file, just like all other idiots who rely on lies. One thing is clear, you're a paper tiger. You wouldn't dare speak to people this way to their face. Have a nice life now. Signature"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34 The Last Days were in the first century: 1 cORINTHIANS 1:7-8 7) So that YE come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end, that YE may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. This signature was made by SigChanger. You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/ > >This is too priceless to miss! > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To lie and paint people who spank their children as > slave owners and beaters, Apparently there's some problem here with the concept of analogy and metaphor. Possibly a bit of reading would help. > only shows that you know > you don't have an argument to make. Analogy is arguement. It has no other use. > A person who > relies on facts and right, doesn't need to use those > tactics. Well the facts are no scientifically conducted studies have shown spanking to produce more than short term compliance, and more antisocial behaviors followed in those studies done on the use of CP. Do spankers rely on "facts and right?" Please ask them to post some "facts" here. > >> When those laws prove inadequate, the solution is always to pass more > >> laws and more laws until the whole scheme becomes unworkable because [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > brat and fight your husband because he wants to > discipline the child. I do not believe I've ever heard LaVonne say that her husband wanted to use CP on her two lovely children. > Now go ahead and tell some lies about me. No one would know anything about you. Is this not your first post here? >You can > enjoy writing to yourself. You go into my kill file, > just like all other idiots who rely on lies. One thing > is clear, you're a paper tiger. You wouldn't dare > speak to people this way to their face. You mean to remonstrate with them for using pain to control their children? I believe, if I'm not mistaken LaVonne does something very like that for a career in education. How to support a child's development NOT using pain and fear. > Have a nice life now. Why do I get the idea that this is Jeremey wearing a cute little sock? Kane > -- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This signature was made by SigChanger. > You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/ You are probably right when you say that LaVonne and her husband argued over disciplinary strategies. A lot of no-spanks are very angry people with lot of unresolved baggage from childhood. Furthermore, there is a strong tradition of women using the *wait until your father gets home* tactic to get men to do the dirty work. A lot of no-spanks are less than truthful when it comes to their own families. No-spank seems to be pretty much a *do as I say not as I do* game. Another thing that may be worth pointing out that, as with several things in the Bible, the idea of spanking kids is probably much older than the person who actually penned the words in Proverbs. In much the same way that the writers in the Bible didn't invent marriage or religion, they didn't come up with the idea of spanking either. It is highly possible that the writer in Proverbs was attempting to separate spanking for punishment from the milder version found in pagan fertility rituals. It is a confusion that still exists today and is exploited by no-spanks. > >This is too priceless to miss! > > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > This signature was made by SigChanger. > You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/ > You are probably right when you say that LaVonne and her husband argued > over disciplinary strategies. Anything is possible. But probable? Nope. I would expect they discussed such things, gien the odds that parents do that sort of activity fairly routinely. You have any logic or evidence that would suggest I'm wrong, and you are right. > A lot of no-spanks are very angry people > with lot of unresolved baggage from childhood. And your evidence would be? Funny that you would accuse someone advocating for non-violent parenting methods (or don't they qualify as "no-spanks?') as being angry with unresolved baggage. Can I assume that the spankers have resolved baggage, and aren't angry then? > Furthermore, there is a > strong tradition of women using the *wait until your father gets home* > tactic to get men to do the dirty work. Boy, you must be ancient. And badly informed. Guess who rates highest as abusing children....women. > A lot of no-spanks are less > than truthful when it comes to their own families. You have evidence of this? Care to share it with us? 0:-> > No-spank seems to > be pretty much a *do as I say not as I do* game. You wouldn't be claiming now that "no-spanks" are in fact secret spankers, would you? R R R R R R ...man, you are a card, lil 'o' > Another thing that may be worth pointing out that, as with several > things in the Bible, the idea of spanking kids is probably much older > than the person who actually penned the words in Proverbs. Actually biblical scholars do not agree on those passages as meaning to "spank" ones children. And of course, knowing you, it's likely you still advocate for stoning adulterous wives, no? > In much the > same way that the writers in the Bible didn't invent marriage or > religion, they didn't come up with the idea of spanking either. What way was that? > It is > highly possible that the writer in Proverbs was attempting to separate > spanking for punishment from the milder version found in pagan > fertility rituals. It is a confusion that still exists today and is > exploited by no-spanks. We'd hardly be able to exploit something that you just thought up, lil 'o' I've never made any connection whatsoever with pagan fertility rituals and bibilical passages that some of you claim advocate spanking. By the way, not being a spanking advocate I have to confess I'm really short on knowledge about spanking in pagan fertility rituals. If Joe Campbell were still alive I'd call him up and see if he recalled any such thing. Now there was a whiz at cutting through the bs like you peddle here. ..... Well, I decided not to find a spiritualist and do a little searching on my own, and by golly you are right. But do you think the biblical so called sanctions for spanking included these: Search on "Pagan rituals +spanking" http://tinyurl.com/byl8q And what would we exploit about them? Oh, you mean there might be some erotic connection between parents spanking and the child's development, or even some lustful things going on for the parent. Can't say, but others note it, and certainly there are many instances related from those that indulge in such things. Check out the PTAVE website. They list a few. Ugh. .....snipping Jeremey's other post already answered.......... Your desperation is showing, despite your tightly wired prose, lil 'o' It's in the idiotic claims, insinuations, and nonsense you chose to post. And your constant lack of connection, just as in the past, to any hard evidence whatsoever. 0:-> > You are probably right when you say that LaVonne and her husband argued > over disciplinary strategies. A lot of no-spanks are very angry people > with lot of unresolved baggage from childhood. ---------------- What totally and completely confabulated and prevaricated bullshit. You're nothing but a sh.t-f.cking liar with self-serving vicious-intentioned delusions. Steve > To lie and paint people who spank their children as > slave owners and beaters, only shows that you know > you don't have an argument to make. ------------------- No, it shows that you're the liar to try to extract that from something quite different. > A person who relies on facts and right, doesn't need to > use those tactics. -------------------------- Which tactics? You're undoubtedly referring to the TRUTH! > What is clear, is that your husband is an unhappy man > and that you are either childless, or the parent of a > brat and fight your husband because he wants to > discipline the child. ---------------------------- Again, this unworthy ignorant crap makes you an obvious liar. > Now go ahead and tell some lies about me. You can > enjoy writing to yourself. You go into my kill file, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have a nice life now. --------------------------- She would, and I SURE AS HELL WOULD! You're a sh.t-f.cking liar and a child-abuser. f.ck off. Steve >> And please, do not judge Christianity by Bible John. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seperates people into the blessed and the heathen, it contributes a > share to the type of arrogant twittery that Bible John so often engages in. Christianity can do this, but it doesn't have to manifest itself in this way. There are many Christians who do not behave as Bible John, and there are many Christians who do not believe in spanking their children. I like the phrase that has now been around for a very long time -- "What would Jesus do?" I doubt that Jesus would have behaved the way many individuals behave today that call themselves Christian. At least, I don't see this in my bible. LaVonne > > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > well as, if not better than, corporal punishment, why would you prefer > to inflict pain? Perhaps you might want to look up this study: 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. 1) Talking to the child calmly 2) Sent the child to the room 3) Time-out 4) Removal of privileges All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). Doan >>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of > the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). I found your last sentence a bit confusing. Is it meant to agree with this abstract? Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Straus MA, Mouradian VE. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham 03824, USA. This study tested the hypothesis that corporal punishment (CP), such as spanking or slapping a child for purposes of correcting misbehavior, is associated with antisocial behavior (ASB) and impulsiveness by the child. The data were obtained through interviews with a probability sample of 933 mothers of children age 2-14 in two small American cities. Analyses of variance found that the more CP experienced by the child, the greater the tendency for the child to engage in ASB and to act impulsively. These relationships hold even after controlling for family socioeconomic status, the age and sex of the child, nurturance by the mother, and the level of noncorporal interventions by the mother. There were also significant interaction effects of CP with impulsiveness by the mother. When CP was carried out impulsively, it was most strongly related to child impulsiveness and ASB; when CP was done when the mother was under control, the relationship to child behavior problems was reduced but still present. In view of the fact that there is a high risk of losing control when engaged in CP, even by parents who are not usually impulsive, and the fact that impulsive CP is so strongly associated with child behavior problems, the results of this study suggest that CP is an important risk factor for children developing a pattern of impulsive and antisocial behavior which, in turn, may contribute to the level of violence and other crime in society. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9 768466&dopt=Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - - Thanks for the reference, it looks like an interesting read. > >>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I found your last sentence a bit confusing. Is it meant to agree with > this abstract? No. It was meant to say that all the non-cp alternatives when subjected to the same statistical analysis are no better than spanking. In fact, my challenge to the anti-spanking zealotS to produce a single study where the non-cp alternatives are any better than spankings under the same conditions has gotten no response. Even researcher like Gershoff acknowledge this fact: "Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true, just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment does not make corporal punishment any better. Until positive effects are linked with corporal punishment, it should not be routinely recommended as a method of controlling children. However, it is important to note that their argument does point to the need for similar research on all methods of parental discipline, not just corporal punishment." Yet, anti-spanking zealotS like LaVonne have repeatedly LIED when they said they have produced such study "numerous times" in this newsgroup. Right, LaVonne? ;-) Doan > Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and > impulsiveness of children. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Thanks for the reference, it looks like an interesting read. >>>Perhaps you might want to look up this study: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of >>>the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). Grinder wrote: >>I found your last sentence a bit confusing. Is it meant to agree with >>this abstract? > No. It was meant to say that all the non-cp alternatives when subjected > to the same statistical analysis are no better than spanking. In fact, > my challenge to the anti-spanking zealotS to produce a single study where > the non-cp alternatives are any better than spankings under the same > conditions has gotten no response. Ok, gotcha. >> No. It was meant to say that all the non-cp alternatives when subjected >> to the same statistical analysis are no better than spanking. In fact, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ok, gotcha. I have been on this ng for 10 years. I have posted study after study that demonstrated non-cp alternatives to have a better result in raising children both short and long term that parenting that used cp. Doan's strategy is to ignore the evidence and repeat the same litany, with the hope that no one has been around long enough to read the studies. If you check the archives, you will find the studies. LaVonne > >> No. It was meant to say that all the non-cp alternatives when subjected > >> to the same statistical analysis are no better than spanking. In fact, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > LaVonne Then you better send an IMMEDIATE email, snail-mail...etc to anti-spanking researcher like Gershoff and Straus right away. They can't seem to find them. STOP LYING! Doan >> > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of >the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). And this biased study compared it to what? Parent's that abuse their children, no doubt. And one can be sure, that they did not include people who have a reasonable approach to spanking, since they would not have asked anyone to spank their child for this test and therefore, it is impossible that it was a fair testing procedure. But hey, some liberals stacking the deck, is, to liberals, "fair". (: Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 www.drdino.com > >> > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And this biased study compared it to what? > Parent's that abuse their children, no doubt. The line between abuse and "spanking" is extremely blurred. The majority of physical abuse seen in child protection courts is in fact "discipline" according to the perps...the parents. > And one can be sure, that they did not include > people who have a reasonable approach to > spanking, You have't read the study. > since they would not have asked > anyone to spank their child for this test and > therefore, Yes, you are right on target with that. > it is impossible that it was a fair > testing procedure. But hey, some liberals > stacking the deck, is, to liberals, "fair". (: No, your opponents are not all liberals. I for instance am not one. But I have pointed out that some of the critics of observational research...studies...they try to invalidate because "destructive" analysis is impossible, would have to say the same for ALL social research. Yes, we cannot actually damage the subjects to study the results. We can only find what is happening and examine it. Let me put it this way. If the researchers actual DID overlook the abusive parent, as you seem to be claiming, in the study group they would be guilty of abetting abuse. In fact some from THE OTHER SIDE of this argument HAVE IN FACT DONE THAT. Rather than 'report' the abuse they publically have declared they had to remove them from the studied group because they were too harsh with 'spanking.' I find that kind of behavior, in support of research, deplorable and would not tolerate researchers that happened to come up with what I agree with simply noting children were being abused and doing nothing about it. Sad state of affairs, eh? Kane >> And this biased study compared it to what? >> Parent's that abuse their children, no doubt. > >The line between abuse and "spanking" is extremely blurred. The >majority of physical abuse seen in child protection courts is in fact >"discipline" according to the perps...the parents. And there's that "bias" I was talking about. :) Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 "And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is AT HAND." - Matthew 3:2 > >> > 2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > testing procedure. But hey, some liberals > stacking the deck, is, to liberals, "fair". (: They compared it to spanking. Straus is a staunch anti-spanking researcher so it is surprising that even he can't find any non-cp alternatives that are better than spanking. As Dr. Larzelere noted about this study: "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." Doan >> >All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of >> >the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >evidence to conclude that reasoning, time out, and/or privilege removal >are counterproductive." Alrighty then! :) Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 Evolution = Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through... Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced... Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but could through... Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an.. Unknown atmospheric composition...in an... Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an... Unknown time and place. Dr. Henry Morris > >> >All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of > >> >the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Alrighty then! :) You smile over yet another compulsive campaigning for hitting children? Tsk. Dr. Larzelere is himself a noted pro spanking advocate but there is much deserved criticism of his "work." He is as clever and ingenious at word manipulation as one would expect of the compulsives. And where HE doesn't other use his nonsense to claim he successfully argues and supports non-punitive methods being more likely to show anti social outcomes. It's totally nonsense babbling and screeching hysterica monkeyboy dancing. Dr. Larzelere did a thoroughly rigorous review of what he considered quality studies on spanking. <smirk> Of the 35 studies that met his stringent inclusion standards, nine (26%) found predominantly beneficial outcomes, 14 (40%) neutral outcomes, and 12 (34%) found predominantly harmful outcomes. By aggregating the beneficial outcomes with the neutral outcomes, he argued that 66% of those studies find no harm in spanking. However, 34% still show that spanking is harmful. Moreover, if we combine the detrimental outcomes with the neutral outcomes we can similarly argue that 74% of the studies find no harm in not spanking! Here is how Dr. Murray Straus, an anti-CP advocate, put it, "Many of the defenses of CP analyzed in this chapter seem on cursory examination to be scientifically sound. Consequently, even social scientists who are opposed to CP are likely to wonder if they are really correct in opposing CP. One example is Robert Larzelere's review of the literature on the effects of CP (Larzelere 1996). He winnowed the many studies down to the `eight strongest studies' and concluded that they all show `beneficial effects'. However, when one reads the actual studies, what they show is that, without exception, non-corporal methods were equally effective." (Demystifying the Defenses of Corporal Punishment, 2001, http://www.nospank.net/toc.htm#straus9). In other words, Straus, while more polite than I is still saying what I say about you folks, "researchers." You are compulsively, and blindly, dedicated to arguing in favor of a savage and vicious child rearing habit. At best spanking has limited short term effects to stop and unwanted behavior, even less success at creating a wanted behavior, and long term high risks of reactivity including anti social behavior from the subject of the spanking. The research shows it plainly and Robert Larzelere simply cherrypicks from the studies and MISINTERPRETS and misrepresents what they actually say. Sad, isn't it. . In fact, you seem extraordinarily attracted to the misinterpreters and liars. > Evolution = > > Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through... No, the chemicals are known. > Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced... Ridiculous. The process is well understood. > Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but > could through... Let me see now. We have an unknown which is not found. Brilliant. > Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an.. Total creationist babble. > Unknown atmospheric composition...in an... The makeup of the admosphere then and now is not a mystery. > Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an... Could one be more dense. > Unknown time and place. The seeking of the unknown is a habit of both the secular and the religious. The difference is the scientist finds more and more proof of his theory, by strict boundaries of how he or she does their research, while the religious simply seeks to find more people willing to agree with an unchanging claim requiring more faith in the face of science's proofs. > Dr. Henry Morris "Dr." Morris? That would be a Doctor of Theology, possibly? >> >> >All of these together "was found to have a much stronger relation than any of >> >> >the other variables." (to anti-sociable behavior). [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >You smile over yet another compulsive campaigning for hitting children? >Tsk. I smile at idiots who label discipline as beating for pleasure. Signature"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." - Acts 9:17 In the beginning, God created... And He did it in six days and said He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8 and in other places. The original Hebrew word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean anything but a literal day in the Bible, when a numerical adjective is present ("second, third, etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow the one exception? http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/human_ecology/family/Staff/Response%20to%20Larzele re%20on%20Sweden.pdf >>>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > testing procedure. But hey, some liberals > stacking the deck, is, to liberals, "fair". (: You might want to read the Doan's additional posting in the thread, as his viewpoint may be in substantial agreement with your own. IT SEEMS LIKE AN INTELLIGENT APPROACH WOULD BE TO READ A STUDY BEFORE WRITING BEFORE THE WORLD, A JUDJMENT OF THE STUDY!! LaVonne >>>>2. Responding to Arguments Against Corporal Punishment >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > testing procedure. But hey, some liberals > stacking the deck, is, to liberals, "fair". (: Nothing wrong with punishing corporals. Did it myself in the Army. But beating kids under the guise of religion is wrong. ..... BB http://www.biblebob.net |
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.